Friday, October 3, 2014
Monday, May 12, 2014
Arkansas, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's Friday decision that Arkansas' voter-approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional was a shock to say the least. As a result, few county clerk's started issuing the marriage license. However, most counties are not issuing the licenses until the Arkansas Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision. Once again, we see an activist judge going against the will of the people. We are supposed to live in a Republic form of government, but unfortunately, we continually see judges not upholding the decisions of the voters, the people. The people want to live in a moral society, one in which they can raise their children not only in a Christian environment, but one in which the society reflects and honors an institution since the beginning of time. For thousands of years, our Western society acknowledged and kept the sacred institution of marriage between a man and woman. Now, only in a few years, activist judges are literally destroying it. We can just add another part of judicial activism from miscegenation, to abortion, to now same sex marriage. In time, we will see pedophilia to the list.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
reprinted from -------godfather politics.com Court Declares Marriage Defenders 'Enemies of the Human Race' Posted by Tad Cronn. Not only did the Supreme Court in a pair of decisions do all but legalize homosexual "marriage" in all 50 states, but if you defend traditional marriage, it decreed that you are a bigot who is just out to demean and humiliate homosexuals and deprive them of their rights. As Justice Antonin Scalia summarized it in his dissent, the majority opinion is that you are an "enemy of the human race." Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, said, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment." Notice the assumption that a homosexual pairing is a "marriage." While the court technically didn't decide on the legality of homosexual marriage, the court assumed it. Thus, the ruling has the effect of legalizing homosexual marriage by acknowledging that states can pass homosexual marriage laws and ruling that any law that doesn't recognize those marriages is assumed invalid. Scalia observed that "by formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition." The ACLU agrees with him. “Scalia’s dissent is absolutely on the money,” Executive Director Anthony Romero said to Politico. “It’s going to open the floodgates for litigation applying equal protection standards to laws discriminating against LGBT people.” The majority opinion is a neat piece of leftist propaganda and circular reasoning that Scalia cuts through in his dissent. "In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement," Scalia wrote. "To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race." So add the Supreme Court's opinion that conservatives are "enemies," as Scalia said, to the fevered fantasies of our Homeland Security Department, which within weeks of Obama's ascension to the Oval Office began issuing reports and warnings about the terrorist threat posed by Christians, military veterans and other conservatives. Don't forget the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS (no, it's not over), crackdown on Christian evangelizing in the military and all the other myriad ways this Administration has demonized the Tea Party, Bible-believing Christians and Jews, and anyone else who stands in its way. Led by a president who is openly hostile to "bitter clingers," there are now two branches of federal government that officially consider conservatives in general "the enemy." If not for Republicans in Congress, that would no doubt be three branches. Islamic terrorists are partners in foreign policy, but at home conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, are the enemy. And we're already being targeted for punishment. In California, legislation is making its way to the governor's desk to remove nonprofit status from the Boy Scouts for their stance against allowing homosexual adults in the organization. It only took a few hours after Wednesday's DOMA and Prop. 8 rulings for Capitol Hill to start buzzing with proposals to remove tax-exempt status from religious organizations that believe homosexuality is a sin and that refuse to perform gay marriages. The chatter got so pervasive that President Obama felt obliged to mention churches in his statement welcoming the DOMA ruling. He said, "On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that." Notice he didn't say he would oppose efforts to make those churches conform, and given his track record, it's a safe bet someone in his Administration will be meeting soon with Harry Reid about just that. As predicted, religious conservatives are the nail, and now the Supreme Court has handed homosexual activists their long-sought hammer.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Julea Ward is a student was enrolled in the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University. As part of their training they conducted actual counseling sessions with real clients. When approached by patients who are homosexuals, Ward reassigned them to other counselors. Ward is also a Christian who values her faith and biblical values and morals. When approached by homosexual patients who sought counseling for their sexuality, she knew that her Christian faith would prevent her from yielding impartial advice. To avoid compromising her faith and to ensure that the patient received the best possible counseling she assigned them to another counselor. In professional counseling, counselors often find themselves in a situation where, for the benefit of the patient, they reassigned or referred a patient to another counselor. This is a common practice found nationwide. However when Ward reassigned homosexuals seeking counseling concerning their sexuality, she was expelled from the counseling program as well as from the University. The University claimed that her actions violated the school’s policy on diversity and tolerance. The Alliance Defending Freedom organization stepped in on Ward’s behalf and filed a lawsuit against the University. However before a verdict could be rendered, the University opted to settle the case out of court for a sum of money in what they said was done in the interest of saving the University the expense of a lengthy trial. In addition to the sum of money, unofficially reported to be $75,000, the school expunged her record and remove any reference of her being expelled. After the settlement was announced Walter Kraft, vice president of Eastern Michigan University said that the settlement that was reached out-of-court left the school’s policies, programs and curricular requirements intact, saying: “The faculty retains its right to establish, in its learned judgment, the curriculum and program requirements for the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University.” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals found those very policies to be questionable when he stated: “What exactly did Ward do wrong in make the referral request? If one thing is clear after three years of classes, it is that Ward is acutely aware of her own values. The point of the referral request was to avoid imposing her values on gay and lesbian clients. And the referral request not only respected the diversity of practicum clients, but it also conveyed her willingness to counsel gay and lesbian clients about other issues – all but relationship issues – an attitude confirmed by her equivalent concern about counseling heterosexual clients about extra-marital sex and adultery in a values-affirming way.” Judge Sutton also pointed out that Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so, explaining: “That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require?” “Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues.” “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Legal Counsel for Ward, had argued her case in front of Judge Sutton saying public universities should not force students to violate their religious beliefs in order to obtain a college degree. He added: “The 6th Circuit rightly understood this and ruled appropriately, so the university has done the right thing in settling this case.” “When Julea sought to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor – a common, professional practice that is endorsed by her profession’s code of ethics – EMU denied the referral. Then it attacked and questioned her religious beliefs, ultimately expelling her from the program. We are pleased that Julea and her constitutionally protected rights have been vindicated.” Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/university-settles-out-of-court-after-expelling-christian-student/#ixzz2EtoTwuIA
Friday, August 31, 2012
The Obama and Romney campaigns are receiving invitations from Thomas Robb to address attendees at the 2012 Knights Party National Leadership Conference this weekend. Both presidential candidates have spoken in regard to the interests of African Americans at the NAACP, Jewish Americans at AIPAC, and Hispanics at LaRaza. The annual conference just outside of Harrison, Arkansas will give them an opportunity to address the concerns of European Americans. The letters can be read below: Romney for President PO Box 149756 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Romney: We would like to invite you to speak to the National Leadership Conference of The Knights Party to be held on the week-end of August 31 – September 2. We are aware that you have either spoken or sent a representative to speak before the American Israel Political Affairs Committee on March 6, 2012 (a Jewish organization), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on July 11, 2012 (an African-American organization), and before La Raza on July 7 (a Hispanic organization.) Because of your desire and willingness to speak before representatives of these various ethnic groups we would most welcome to have you speak before a White Nationalist group as well. Like those groups which you have already spoken to or sent a representative to, we also have a concern about our national pride, the economy, the environment, peace in the middle-east and a better future for our children. We are in hopes that you will accept our invitation. I am confident that we would have various white leaders in attendance such as David Duke, Willis Carto, James Edwards, Don Black, Merlin Miller, along with such international guests as Paul Fromm and Tomislav Sunic. Please contact my office at 870-427-3414 to schedule your appearance. ____________________________________________________ Obama for America P.O. Box 803638, Chicago IL 60680 Dear Mr. Obama We would like to invite you to speak to the National Leadership Conference of The Knights Party to be held on the week-end of August 31 – September 2. We are aware that you have either spoken at or sent a representative to speak before the American Israel Political Affairs Committee on March 4, 2012 (a Jewish organization), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on July 12, 2012 (an African-American organization), and before La Raza on July 8 (a Hispanic organization.) Because of your desire and willingness to speak before representatives of these various ethnic groups we would most welcome to have you speak before a White Nationalist group as well. Like those groups which you have already spoken to or sent a representative to, we also have a concern about our national pride, the economy, the environment, peace in the middle-east and a better future for our children. We are in hopes that you will accept our invitation. I am confident that we would have various white leaders in attendance such as David Duke, Willis Carto, James Edwards, Don Black, Merlin Miller, along with such international guests as Paul Fromm and Tomislav Sunic. Please contact my office at 870-427-3414 to schedule your appearance.
Monday, June 25, 2012
reprinted by-------------------------- By Roy Beck, Monday, June 25, 2012 In all the analysis of whether Arizona or Pres. Obama came out on top in the Supreme Courts ruling on S.B. 1070 today, the key question is: how well did unemployed Americans fare? And the answer is: Very well. Combined with another Court ruling on an Arizona law last year, states now have all the legal room they need to pursue attrition-through-enforcement measures that cause illegal aliens to depart from a state, opening up jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants. Although headlines have focused on the court knocking down three of four provisions before it, it should be noted that S.B. 1070 began with 14 sections. After all the challenges at several court levels, 11 of those sections are still standing and the court today ruled against only half of the twelfth. The one that was cleared today by the Court was the right of police to question people about their immigration status. This may be the most important provision in causing illegal aliens to leave Arizona, judging by the frenzy of concerned reaction by the pro-amnesty forces and the Obama administration. We have always regarded S.B. 1070 as supplementary to the far more important, earlier Arizona bill that requires every employer to use E-Verify to keep illegal aliens and tourists from taking jobs. The Obama administration also opposed this effort, but the Court last year entirely upheld the right of states to protect its workers in that way. Combining the two rulings, Arizona now has the Supreme Court-approved model to show all other states that they dont have to sit idly by while an estimated 7 million illegal aliens take U.S. jobs in construction, manufacturing, service, transportation and even some in the professions. These are the occupations where most of the 20 million Americans who are unemployed or forced into part-time work are also seeking a job. Since 1986, the prevailing theory about illegal immigration in Washington has been one of inevitability that nothing can be done to cause illegal aliens to leave once they get into the country. Hence, Congress passed seven amnesties between 1986 and 2000. Now, Arizona and presumably a number of other states can be full-effort laboratories to prove inevitability a false theory. We are heartened that even in writing the majority opinion that blocked three parts of Arizonas law, Justice Kennedy recognized that decisions by three straight presidents to significantly ignore federal immigration law have put states in a bind. "The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States," he wrote. "Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. . . . Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizonas concerns. Accounts in the record suggest there is an epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border." In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administrations announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times. "After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. "The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congresss failure to pass the Administrations proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind." As if to underscore Scalias assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week. Fortunately, all states now have a bright green light from the Court to follow Arizonas lead in enforcing the laws in the way that Congress intended, even if the president insists on violating those laws. (This analysis originally appeared as an op-ed on FoxNews.com)