Monday, June 27, 2005

Supreme Court Bad Behavior

The Supreme Court closed out this session with a trio of baffling decisions. Rather than come clean and make clear that Ten Commandment displays do not constitute making an unconstitutional "law respecting an establishment of religion", regardless of where they are displayed, they muddied the waters further with legalistic hair-splitting questions of "inside" or "outside" and "intent". Plaques, papers and monuments do not constitute laws. Nor are the Ten Commandments or other similar documents a religious establishment or organization. Read the English, it's really quite plain, "establishment" is being used as a noun and not a verb. Get back to the written meaning of the Constitution and quit ruling that is says something it doesn't.

Then in the Grokster case the (In)Justices continue their practicing of siding with government and big business versus the inherent and explicit rights of the people, including freedom of speech. This despite their own prior legal precedent in the Betamax case. Even more baffling is the fact that such a decision was unanimous. I just don't get it. How can they be so bought and paid for?

What to do now becomes the question. Article III, Section 1 says "The Judges, ..., shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". It also appears to say they can be impeached. In the real world not doing your job properly and exceeding your authority would certainly be considered bad behavior. Recent rulings provide clearer and clearer evidence that a number of (in)justices on this court have no clue what their job is.

Therefore, let us begin the call for impeachment. We'll start with Souter, if for no other reason than his deceptive confirmation behavior, most everything since then is just grist for the mill. Next would be Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer. That ought to clean the court out quite nicely and even allow for a mistake or two along the way. Call your Representatives and urge an immediate start. Return our government to the people.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Psalm 121

Today's teaching comes from Psalm 121:

I will lift up my eyes to the mountains;
From where shall my help come?

My help comes from the LORD,

Who made heaven and earth.

He will not allow your foot to slip;

He who keeps you will not slumber.

Behold, He who keeps Israel

Will neither slumber nor sleep.

The LORD is your keeper;

The LORD is your shade on your right hand.
The sun will not smite you by day,
Nor the moon by night.

The LORD will protect you from all evil;

He will keep your soul.

The LORD will guard your going out and your coming in

From this time forth and forever.

This passage is not just a piece of nice ancient poetry. It is a promise from God to the Psalmist that he would be Israel's always vigilant close at hand protector, guarding their activities and their souls from threats both spiritually and earthly. He will watch over His People.

As believers, grafted into the olive tree of His People (Rom 17:18), we too are partakers of this promise. It applies to all who believe and follow Him. This is strength and comfort, an rock to hold to, in a time when the actions and decisions of our fellow human beings cause us distress. I pray that we will hold onto His promises even when the way is rocky and sky dark. He will protect and guide.

God Bless.

*all quotes from New American Standard Bible-Updated and PC Study Bible

Friday, June 24, 2005

Open Letter to (In)Justice Anthony Kennedy

Dear Injustice Kennedy; What were your thinking ?!?!? KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. was oh so clearly a Big-Daddy-Nanny-Government versus The-Constitutional-Rights-of-da-People issue how could you vote for it? The fact that the 4 libs on the court were for it should have been your first clue.

What part of "Public" and "Private" do you not understand? You quote the trial court who said "Where the purpose [of a taking] is economic development and that development is to be carried out by private parties or private parties will be benefited..." You should have stopped right there and said no!

Next time someone calls you "a conservative" you should go sue them for libel/slander. I'm sure you'd win great sums of money.

I realize this may be a lost plea, but if you get the chance please retire soon and take at least one of your liberal buddies with you. Maybe we can then get a couple of more justices on the court that understand the Constitution means what says and doesn't need reinterpretation or extension.

Thank you

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

What's the Real "Truth about Hillary"

Ed Klein's new book "The Truth about Hillary" appears to be causing quite a stir before it's even out. I heard an interview with Mr. Klein by Sean Hannity this evening on the radio. It sounded like he's pulled together some very interesting information.

However, Mr. Hannity seemed to think some (many?) of the allegations were "too personal". And many so-called conservative bloggers are saying that Republicans should run away from this book because some of the excerpts sound undocumented and too salacious, or because somebody else said so. That seems suspicious to me. The book is not even out yet and it's being judged based on limited information and hearsay. The Clinton machine cannot easily attack Mr. Klein for being card-carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy; makes me wonder whether there's a more round-about smear campaign underway.

Frankly, I think conservative Republicans have become too timid, scared by the failure of President Clinton's impeachment. We should stick to our principles, speak out minds, and make our own decisions about what we believe. Personal behavior does matter: It's a pretty good indicator of public and political actions.

Get the book, read it, and make up your own mind. That's what I plan to do

Friday, June 17, 2005

Terri Schiavo, Murder or Not?

I know I'm going to be out of step with most of my conservative friends on this issue. The Terri Schiavo autopsy report resolved a big "if" in my mind; that of whether there was any hope of recovery for her. Miracles do happen, but it's clear to me that this was not one of those cases. Her husband and doctors were dealing with facts whereas her parents were operating purely on their hopes.

The other "if" was determining what she would have wanted. I guess I have to accept the determination of the courts that there was sufficient evident that she would not want to have continued in the state she was in. Given that I have to conclude that letting her die was not murder.

In fairness to those who would disagree, she was still a person and she was still alive. I just don't think this particular unique case rises to standard of murder. Also, I agree she was killed in a particularly painful and poor manner, and I wish there were some way to have made her more comfortable in her passing, but it wasn't criminally wrong.

I realize I've not articulated an entirely consistent position here. I still think that society is too quick to condone murder in various forms because it is convenient or easy. This is a very tough issue that I think sometimes defies neat, pat answers.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Mr. White Glove

"Not guilty" = "Innocent", NOT. Enough said.

2nd Amendment Blog

I found this blog, "A Nation of Riflemen" by Kim du Toit, a week or so ago. Imagine a blog written by a conservative, homeschooling, atheist, anti-racist, South African emigrant, rock musician and writer named Kim. I don't entirely agree with him, but if you are into preserving our 2nd Amendment rights then this will be an interesting read for you. He's also go lotsa links to various other similar blogs and related information.


Friday, June 10, 2005

Mark Felt, Hero or Villan?

Was Mark Felt a virtuous whistle-blower exposing government corruption, or a venial traitor acting out of selfish revenge? There clearly was reason for personal animosity against President Nixon. On the other hand there was plenty of evidence to leak. His motives may be suspect, but I think almost everyone today agrees that the information provided was not false. He may have been an angry snitch, but he wasn't a liar.

At the same time I don't think he was any kind of hero. By comparison look at the people who have released information about Presidential misbehavior in the last 10 years or so. Almost every one of them did so in public or under oath using their real name. They put their money, their jobs and their reputations where their mouth was. Mr. Felt slunk around in the shadows like some kind of criminal most likely because he didn't want to hurt his precious career. That's not the behavior of a hero.

Nor do I think he was solely responsible for the fall of the Nixon administration. Who knows what would have come out. Somebody might have openly come forward to tell what they knew and saw. The Press might have actually found more information from other sources. One or more of the government investigations might have actually resulted in action. There are too many "ifs" to make this one man the sole reason for what followed.

So, I think Mark Felt was an ambitious angry man who leaked the facts he had at his disposal for his own purposes. The end result was what needed to happen, but I wonder whether the chain of events might have unfolded with less pain for the country if the facts had come out in a more open manner.