Supreme Court rules child rapists can't be executed.

As many of you may not be aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Kennedy v. Louisiana that child rapists cannot be executed. The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who appealed the 2003 death sentence he received in Louisiana after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing "evolving standards of decency" in the United States. Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime against an individual other than murder. "We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other," wrote Kennedy. Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the first convicted rapist in the United States since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed. Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said. This is devastating to know that our children are not protected from rapists that prey on our children. This again shows the moral standards being continually lowered. The Holy Bible specifically calls for the death penalty for rapists of any kind, and the majority of states up until 1964 allowed execution for this type of crime. However, the 60s is when the U.S. Supreme Court started moving away from Christian based decisions. But some in Congress are attempting to take action. House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) is so outraged by the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Kennedy v. Louisiana child-rape case that he has drafted a letter to the Supreme Court Justices asking them to withdraw the current opinion and reconsider the case. Please call your Representatives today at 202-225-3121 and ask them to add their voices to the issue. The courts should never consider "evolving standards of decency" in a brutal rape case. I recently received an email from another attorney on this and have posted it here.

----------------------------

Dear Jason. I recently ran across your blog . I, like you, am an attorney, a family man, and a believer in Jesus Christ. I have my own law practice in St.Louis County, Missouri. Although I expected the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana, I was deeply saddened and grieved at the Court's ruling which protects the vilest of criminals. The Court's reference to evolving standards of decency would be laughable if it weren't so perverse and alarming. I see nothing decent in making this country safe for pedophiles. These justices are products of a deluded 20th Century educational system that taught them God doesn't exist, that demonic influences don't exist, and that people on the inside are all essentially identical blank slates who will all act the same if they are just provided the same education. They were taught that the key to eliminating bad behavior, including murder and rape is simply education. They couldn't be more wrong. God does exist, demonic influences do exist, and people are vastly different from each other and will act very differently when exposed to the same educational and other environmental influences. I believe that Kennedy v. Louisiana needs to be cried out against over and over again as an example of the depravity of the decision makers in this country. Hopefully, the political right won't let this miscarriage of justice be forgotten. I hope you will use your forum to cry out against the gross miscarriage of justice that is the Court's ruling in Kennedy vs.Louisiana, God Bless you and your family. Please keep speaking out against evil, it will not be in vain. Yours very truly, Frank L.

Denver Mayor will host Homosexual conference.

According to the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Taskforce, "The Colorado Host Committee for the 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, recently hosted a Denver-area fundraiser to kick off the host committee’s work to roll out the rainbow carpet of welcome to all attendees at the upcoming Creating Change Conference. Mayor John Hickenlooper, Denver’s pro-LGBT leader, regaled the crowd and announced his full support for the conference, which will be held Jan. 28–Feb. 1, 2009, in Denver. The event raised $1,800 for the host committee’s scholarship fund to make the movement’s most unique annual skills and strategy conference accessible to youth attendees from Colorado. Special thanks to Chris Meza and Brian Jacobson who opened their home for the event." The photo on the right is: Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, host committee co-chairs Hope Wisneski and Gus Spheeris, Task Force Movement Building Director Russell Roybal and host committee co-chair Anthony Aragon. Continued, "Each year the conference is held in a different region of the United States and attracts 2,500+ participants from within and outside of the LGBT community." So parents living in Colorado and specifically within Denver, hold your children tight to you if you are driving by this conference since homosexuals will be out full force. These homosexuals will be eyeing your children. There will no doubt individuals that attend these conferences will be members of the Man/Boy Club that actively promotes men having sexual relationships with boys. What is more disturbing is the fact that a prominent mayor is actively promoting this conference. He definitely is no friend to White Christians that want a Christian European society and a country that reflects the long standing tradition of a European culture. Would the mayor ever publically announce an endorsement for a conference being held in Denver that promotes White Christians. Of course not. Politicians today will now actively seek the endorsement from the perverted lifestyle of homosexuals rather than the Christian family. Until then.

House of Representatives holds First meeting ever on "transgender discrimination."

On June 26 , 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held its first-ever hearing on "transgender discrimination" in the workplace. In addition the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force submitted written testimony documenting the urgent need for inclusion of gender identity in federal employment protection, in addition, the NGLT said, "the Action Fund has worked closely with the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) to prepare for the hearing.
Several studies have shown widespread employment discrimination against transgender people, as documented in the Action Fund’s written testimony. Later this summer, the Task Force Policy Institute will be adding to the existing body of research with the launch of the largest-ever study of transgender people’s experiences of discrimination in their daily lives, including within the workplace." Statement by Rea Carey, Executive DirectorNational Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund said, “Discrimination against transgender people is pervasive and current laws and employer policies are insufficient to protect their rights. For far too long, transgender people have lived with the fear of losing their job simply because of who they are. Today’s hearing marks a critical step in addressing this travesty once and for all. “We applaud the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions for holding today’s hearing, and we urge lawmakers to pass federal employment protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” However, the reason the homosexual groups are wanting laws prohibiting discrimination in the work place because they know that the vast majority of Americans believe the homosexual lifestyle is gross and perverted. The only reason laws are passed are to force individuals to do something that they normally would not do. Americans, as a whole, do not want to walk into businesses with their children and have to be face to face with overt homosexuals. And because of this, the homosexual groups want to eventually get Congress to pass laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual identity. If this happens, then this again takes away a business owner to decide what is best for his company and who he hires and fires. Not only that, but our churches will once again be bowing down to the homosexual agenda same as they did with the so called civil rights acts in the 1960s. Unfortunately, you would not see a hearing on the discrimination of White Christians in the work force. You do not see a hearing on the thousands and thousands of attacks of White people every day by blacks and mexicans. You never will. We have only begun to see the evil that is being dripped into our communities and government. Until then.

U.S. Supreme Court upholds the 2nd Amendment.

What a wonderful case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled while I was on vacation. To hear this while I was flipping through the channels at the motel, made me smile greatly. If you didn't hear, the U.S. Supreme Court in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07-290, which was argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008 held that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns while in their home for protection. The District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

to read the full case. click here. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290

I'll be on Vacation-but check these websites out.

This is to let everyone know that I will be on vacation for the next week and therefore, I will not be able to post anything until I get back. However, if there is a chance that I have a computer to get on, I will do my hardest to do that. But don't hold your breath. Before you go, you need to click on http://www.stormfront.org/ to check on the daily radio programs with white nationalist perspective. In addition, click on http://www.whitepridehomeschool.com/ to learn about the new homeschool webpage that is tailored to white Christian families for parents whom are interested in teaching their children at home while at the same time, teaching them to have pride in their race.

The "Fairness Doctrine"- a ploy to destroy the public airways

I have reprinted an article by Eva Arlia that goes into detail the attempt by the Liberals in Congress to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" which threatens the broadcasters licensing if they don't offer the opposing side equal time on the air. This is an attack on broadcasters' First Amendment righs. This act is being revived as a result of the overwhelming success of conservative talks shows in the past two decades, and the overwhelming failure of the liberal talks shows. As a result, the liberals want to destroy any conservative or traditional viewpoint on the air since its success. Even though the media is ultra liberal, they don't want the ability of Christians, conservatives, or those that hold traditional ideas to be able to voice their opinion and possibly have the public hear something different than the liberal soundbytes. They virtually can't stop the internet, however, they figure at least they can try to stop the radio. On the right is a picture of several members of the US House of Representatives and media personalities, which recently held a press conference to urge every member of Congress to sign the Fairness Doctrine discharge petition to bring H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, to the House floor for an up or down vote. The petition currently has 190 signatures and 218 are needed to bring the bill to the floor.

Fair to Whom?by Eva Arlia August 14, 2007

It appears as though we’ve taken a time capsule back to the Cold War. Liberals in Congress are “looking at the possibility” of bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” a completely partisan ploy to manipulate the public airwaves and stifle free speech. An arcane method of regulating broadcasters, the “Fairness Doctrine” threatens broadcasters with loss of licensing if they do not offer airtime to opposing viewpoints, thus creating—in theory, at least—“fair and balanced” reporting. Given the surge of popularity of conservative talk radio, this debate is turning into nothing more than a childish tantrum on the part of liberals that, “You’re not listening to me!”

This controversial attack on the First Amendment dates back to 1949 and was consistently challenged until it was ultimately overturned in 1987. A misguided attempt to enhance public awareness, this policy, in effect, restricts journalistic freedom and actually inhibits controversial issues from being presented.

Oddly enough, the hatchet that was buried twenty years ago has again been dug up and is being used to chop down our freedom of expression and speech.

The Senate first instigated the current “Fairness Doctrine” debate in late June when liberal Senators publicly declared their intentions to revive this antiquated policy. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) have all announced their support for the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Sen. Durbin has repeatedly claimed that it is in the best interest of the nation to have “an educated electorate.” In an interview with Fox News Sunday on June 24, Sen. Feinstein said, “I remember when there was a [F]airness [D]octrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.” Sen. Kerry then made a public statement on June 26 on YouTube asserting that there is an “imbalance of our public dialogue,” and that the “Fairness Doctrine” would alleviate concerns about squeezing out opposing views.

At the onset of this fierce debate, the House considered an amendment offered by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) to the Financial Services Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2829), to bar the FCC from spending money to revive the “Fairness Doctrine” or any similar policies. On June 28, Rep. Pence’s amendment passed overwhelmingly in a 309-115 vote.

A group of conservative Senators, led by Sen. Norm Coleman, (R-Minnesota) followed suit by writing the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007, which contains nearly identical language to the Pence amendment and maintains that the FCC cannot reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine.” Regrettably, Sen. Durbin and other liberals have rebuffed repeated attempts to attach this legislation onto appropriations bills on the Senate floor.

Sen. Coleman first tried to attach the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the Department of Defense Reauthorization bill (H.R. 1585) on July 16, and liberals objected to his request, interrupting his floor speech several times to ask questions and highlight their objections to the legislation. Later that week, on July 20, he proposed attaching the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the Higher Education Reauthorization Bill (S. 1642) and was again rebuffed by a procedural vote that fell directly along party lines.

Broadcasters have also spoken out against the “Fairness Doctrine.” A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times stated, “No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available to express them … [j]ust as the government shouldn’t decide what you say on the channels you create, nor should it be able to dictate the range of opinions people hear over the air.” In a press release following the Pence Amendment passage, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) stated, “Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstitutional. Complementing the absolute explosion in alternative media outlets since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, broadcast viewers and listeners today enjoy a rich diversity of viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum.”

Sen. Coleman echoed those sentiments earlier in his floor speech during the introduction of the Broadcaster Freedom Act. “In the world of communications today, Americans have all sorts of options to hear the other side. All they’ve got to do is turn a dial. All they’ve got to do is push a button. All they’ve got to do is press a mouse.”

Suppressing freedom of speech as a political tactic has not curried favor with many in this debate. Via the Internet, radio or television, abundant viewpoints are available, and consumers can subscribe to whichever suits their fancy. Keeping access to the airwaves free and unfettered is an important task of Congress, and it should not abandon that task now."

Picket the National Education Association's convention

As many are unaware, the The National Education Association (NEA) is a very liberal educatation organization. Thousands of teachers that teach our youth in the public schools in the rural and urban areas are members of this ultra liberal organization. However, even many of these teachers are not aware that the NEA promotes homosexuality, abortion, and the secular lifestyle, all of which is against our Christian faith and heritage. The vast majority of the public believes the NEA just wants to teach our children in the public schools the essential elements of the A, B, C's, without fully realizing the incidious plans of the NEA. Yet, the NEA's plans are being brought to light more and more everyday as students are being dumbed down each year as a result of the children being brainwashed by the NEA's teachers. That being said, the NEA will be holding its annual convention in Washington, D.C. in early July. On July 2, Pro-Life teachers, students, parents and school employees will be picketing outside the national convention and also outside NEA state offices nationwide. The purpose is to draw attention to the NEA's entrenched pro-abortion position - a position that many NEA members and even convention delegates remain unaware of. Your participation is encouraged! Go to http://www.prolifeeducators.com/ to learn more about this protest.