I guess we’ll take what we can get.

I still await the day that this court admits they totally made up the “right” to kill babies at any stage in the womb. Baby killing is not protected by the US Constitution.

The cult of Albert Gore Jr. is having a direct impact on your life and nobody seems to care much about it. Your US Supreme Court has ruled, that via the EPA the government must regulate CO2 emissions in the United States of America. You probably have not thought much about this matter. About how a big lie is literally being leveraged to control your entire life. And I mean your entire life. Because the mess won’t stop with corporations and the increased prices you’ll have to pay and the longer hours you’ll have to work to pay those higher costs. Oh no, eventually the cult will be leveraged for one of the ultimate goals under the cult known as Liberalism, which is to control the womb. You might hear the Left claim that we Conservatives are the ones who attempt to control the womb by keeping babies from being murdered in it, but you will find it is the Left that really wants to control the womb via population control. Don’t believe me? Well have a look at this link, that was passed along to this blog by reader Julie.

Notice how the mind of the environmentalist works and compare that with the warning from the apostle Paul.

The United Nations Population Fund claims to be helping people in the 3rd world, when actually they are doing all they can to kill poor people’s babies. Your babies are next, the Liberals just need to exact more power via government to deal with you.

You’ve got a demon inspired death cult looking you square in the face and many of you probably don’t even realize it.

And of course, since they don’t like anyone to oppose them, Julie also found that they are working to shut people like me up.

Champion of our legal system, Mark Levin sees what happened in the high court yesterday and has sounded the alarm for you to WAKE UP. Yesterday’s ruling was not a minor ruling, but a MAJOR one, that will impact you for the rest of your natural life. How long before the view that you are a pollutant and must be regulated is leveraged to control how many more polluting humans can be born in this country?

Of course Mark Levin uses strong language and he’s probably the first to tell you he’s no saint, but listen to what the man has to say. He’s not the type to crack out a Bible and read you verses, but my view and his view show that no matter what level you view yesterday’s ruling from, it was a bad thing to see it happen. Levin speaks about freedom, I speak about cultists running your life. Either way, you lost and didn’t even know it.

Hear Mark Levin using the audio link below.
Mark Levin on yesterday’s SCOTUS CO2 ruling - ASF Audio (Size: 2.05 MB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the media file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

Once again the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stabs America in the back. While some praised the court for their decision regarding the Mt. Soledad Cross, I knew they’d let America down again and it only took them a day. They’ve overturned one of the convictions against the millennium bomber, who was caught before he killed who knows how many people at LAX.

Those nuts are debating if a terrorist was emboldened to lie because he had explosives. Isn’t it just insane that they would even entertain such a matter? This is why terrorists and their allies cannot be tried in US courts. Our judiciary is just so messed up, that terrorists and their allies can shop for judges until they get a sentence reduced to nothing. On top of the fact they are very unlikely to be sentenced to death, which is what they deserve.

Regardless of the information obtained from that terrorist, he should have been swinging by the neck way before Saddam and his buddies got it! Instead he finds weasel lawyers, to help him possibly walk out of prison one day. He was a trained al Qaeda terrorists for crying out loud!

Just the guy you DON’T want on those committees gets placed there. Thanks for nothing Democrats.

Islamists front group CAIR has been seeking the racial profiling ban and Ellison is their man in Congress. With immigration, you know he’s going to favor Muslim countries. And with the courts, he’s avoided saying if he’ll uphold the US Constitution over Sharia law.

He’s also on the House Financial Services Committee. They handle things like terrorist finance tracking.

Keith Ellison has been placed on key committees, that you would NEVER want someone who might favor Islamists to be on.

Hat tip to Michael Savage for the article link.

update 1/18/2007 9:08AM: Robert Spencer offers his take at Hot Air.

This is proof that voting for a Liberal simply because he aligns with some of your views will still burn you! When voters in NJ voted for Democrat James E. McGreevey, they had no idea they were also voting for so-called gay marriage, but in fact they were. Of course if given a vote, the people of NJ would outlaw morally depraved efforts to place anything but one man and one woman into an institution with the name “marriage”. Just as is happening all across this nation and Thank God will soon happen here in Tennessee. The voters in NJ voted for McGreevey because they thought the Liberal was someone they agreed with, but now they have been burned. And many in NJ still don’t even realize it was him that burned them.

Yesterday Dr. Michael Savage uncovered that McGreevey loaded up the NJ Supreme Court with pro-gay activist judges. Of the 4 judges in the majority of the 4-3 ruling, that voted for homosexuals to be treated as if they were heterosexual. 3 of those judges were appointed by none other than Liberal Democrat and formerly down-low gay sex at highway rest stops James E. McGreevey. (Yes heterosexual fornication is also a sin, but McGreevey was engaging in depraved unnatural activity with any man he could get his hands on. While he had a wife and kids at home!) McGreevey claimed he was against gay marriage, to stealthily win the Governorship and then stacked the court with judges that would favor it. Everyone knew he was a Liberal Democrat and simply hoped he was not “that Liberal”. The bottom line is that all candidates prove to be a bit more Liberal once in office than they told voters they were when running for office. So if a candidate seems to be fairly Liberal like McGreevey, you have to assume he’s actually a far Left Liberal, willing to allow all manner of sin to be not just allowed, but actually encouraged by the state with special recognition, licensing and benefits.

Of the judges on the NJ Supreme Court 3 were nominated by McGreevey and 4 by former Republican Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Only one of Withman’s appointed judges sided with McGreevey’s picks. At 75% she did pretty good! I’m not saying Whitman is very Conservative, because I never felt she was, but she is more of a Conservative than McGreevey. Savage details it all here on his web site.

The bottom line is that the people of NJ need to press for the ability to amend their state’s constitution to end this mess. And everyone across the nation should press for a Constitutional amendment that affirms state recognized marriage in America can only be between one man and one woman. As I continually mention, Utah was not allowed into the Union until that state and its largest religious body denounced polygamy. Certainly they would not have been permitted with gays calling themselves married. America has always been against so-called gay marriage, to the point of it being so obvious that nobody felt a need to waste paper on making laws to outlaw it before now. Keep in mind there were laws against fornication and sodomy. America had a level of sexual morality, that homosexual-activists are trying to tear away. Americans regardless of their race or status do not want gays calling themselves “married” and if Americans want to stop it they will need to eventually do so on the federal level. Because if not, the gay activists will press their own claim on the federal level. Just as immoral baby killers pressed the federal courts about the issue of abortion when some states outlawed it. Pro-gay Liberals will do the same with this issue of who can be called “married” in America. The attitude of Americans against gays’ efforts is far stronger than even the effort to prevent the intentionally targeted killing of babies in the womb. So there is no shortage of people who are against the pro-gay lobby. But those who are against that lobby must press the case to the highest level or the pro-gay lobby will.

Also, legislative bodies need the ability to be able to over-ride a court ruling with a 2/3 majority vote. This will ensure in cases where courts grossly overstep their bounds, the issue can be swiftly corrected. The NJ court did not uphold law, they made it. And the people need a means to press for removal of such insane rulings. Savage feels the judges themselves should be removed. Down here in the South, we vote for our judges to obtain and maintain their posts. So it’s very easy for us to remove the ones who don’t act right. Maybe that’s why you have not seen any Southern court ruling for gays to call themselves “married”.

The gay lifestyle is, unnatural, unhealthy and unproductive. Which is why Jesus said:

Hear Michael Savage speaking about NJ and issues of sexual morality using the audio link below.
Michael Savage on NJ and sexual morality - WMA Audio (Size: 682 KB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the audio file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

The folks at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) asked me if they could send me updates about our war against enemies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I told them sure, because I figured there are times they are trying to get out information that you and I might want to know about, but the MSM is probably not going to report it. Although I’m sure CENTCOM sends them press releases.

This latest piece of information from them interests me greatly and probably you too, but lets see if you can find a US based MSM outlet that says much about it. If they say anything at all I’m sure it will be less than they say about news that might put a negative spin on efforts to defeat the enemy.

Of course if I were running the court there might be more than 5 sentenced to death, but I’ll accept the court’s ruling .

Now I’m sure reports like this have been made in the past and I never knew about them, because our lovely US MSM says very little or nothing about it. The only Iraqi court hearings we ever hear about in the MSM, is when Saddam wants to run his mouth in court.

Notice how the terrorists were convicted and sentenced in Iraqi courts in less than 2 years time. Some in just a matter of months! If those same terrorists were on trial here in the USA, they’d still be awaiting sentencing and once sentenced they would get light sentances. Isn’t that amazing that Iraqi courts better recognize the threat of terrorists than American courts? You’d think the nation that launched the effort to stamp out Islamists would better recognize the threat than the nation that lives under Islam.

update 10/19/2006 8:50PM: So I got the press release at noon and it’s almost 9 hours later. So far a Google News search shows that only one site in their news search engine is carrying this story. And that site is a military news site.

You mean to tell me Katie didn’t run with this story as the lead tonight ?

First Zacarias Moussaoui gets life in prison and now Lynne Stewart only gets 28 months. At this rate, if Osama bin Laden were captured he’d be sentenced to 30 days in a halfway house!

Hot Air ran a piece in preparation for the sentencing, with all the details of Stewart’s crime and then like me was disappointed with the final verdict.

You know what time it is… Who can best express the frustration, with seeing enemies who aid those who chant “Death to America” getting off easy? Well on this one it was none other than Michael Savage. He like Hot Air, noted the judge John George Koeltl is a Clinton appointee who was a Watergate special prosecutor. Even Stewart mentioned he was practically patting her on the back before sentencing. This is a judge that should be removed from his post. And this case should be retried.

There were claims that Stewart could not do a long time in prison because of breast cancer, but I think Savage said it best when he said:

You can be a traitor with breast cancer or you can be a patriot with breast cancer!

Regardless of her medical condition, she deserved a trial that should have resulted in the President executing the death penalty on the White House lawn!

You do have to have some level of concern that Democrats running the government might result in more terrible judges and results like this.

I also think the crowds supporting Stewart are a concern. Are they all idiots or conscious enemies of America? Remember, even the more Leftward leaning types in Europe are starting to understand there is a real issue at hand. Going light on Islamic nuts and their allies only encourages the enemy. Those nuts in the crowds supporting Stewart won’t know what hit them until it’s too late!

Pray and educate, that’s all we can do. Because we are in the midst of a very serious war and some people think it’s all fabricated.

Check out Savage’s take. He might be ranting, but he offers plenty of details worth noting.
Michael Savage on the Lynne Stewart verdict - MP3 Audio (Size: 1.96 MB)
(If linking, please link to this post, not the audio file. For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

And this is why I usually read and initial every page in multi-page legal documents.

Doe vs. Bolton was ruled on the same day as the original Roe v. Wade case.

Keep in mind Norma McCorvey, the original “Jane Roe” is now Pro-Life.

Hat tip Michael Savage.

The people of Indiana are hoping for a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment to ensure marriage remains a union of one man and one woman. In the mean time they have a law on the books that helps defend marriage until that time. This prevents the perverted Pro-Gay Lobby’s efforts to try and have the state offer special recognition to gays that feel they should be granted a status reserved for one man and one woman that make their union official - married. One of the cornerstones of defending marriage is the fact it is the best environment for raising children. Indiana’s Supreme Court fails to make that connection and has approved of the adoption of children by couples that are not married. They can be unmarried male/female fornicators, they can be a gay couple and the state’s high court feels they are just fine for raising children.

It is harder, but possible for a single person to raise a child. And a single person can keep themselves from exposing a child to sins like fornication. Plus there are plenty of cases where 2 parents have failed in their duties and someone like an older widow might take in the child for care. A married couple adopting is optimal, but other than that a single person that does not expose the child to negative influences is all that should be allowed. Couples that are “shacking up” should not be allowed to adopt children. Adoption is a privilege that should not be granted to straight unmarried or gay couples. The people in the state of Indiana are in the process of rejecting privileges for gay couples and unmarried couples have no privileges either. Therefore they should not be allowed the privilege of adopting a child.

An unmarried heterosexual couple exposes a child to out of wedlock sex, which may have been the conditions the child was conceived in. An adopting family should be able to provide better, not raise the child in an environment of sin that could continue a cycle of out of wedlock sex and children born outside of wedlock. A gay couple simply is a sinful non-productive entity and so children should not be raised in such conditions via state approved adoption.

For Indiana’s Supreme Court to allow such an endorsement of sinful “couples” runs counter to efforts in the state to defend marriage and good social order.

Many states once had laws to prevent fornication and sodomy. Now Liberal judges have removed those laws and turned established social order on its head, by allowing the same people that once would have been charged with a crime to adopt children. These kinds of legal matters like state approved immoral forms of adoption used to never exists, because once upon a time America knew better.

I wonder if I’m the only Conservative in the world who ever found some value in a single page of the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Federalist Papers are a great body of work used by those who pressed for Federalism, there were detractors who did have a good counter-point about the structure of our judiciary. THEY WERE THE ONES who said that our structure gave too much power to the Judiciary and we would be in the court ruled mess we have today.

Look at what they said in Antifederalist No. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1).

…
The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.
…

While so much focus is put on the Federalist Papers, I think some Conservatives would probably find some value in parts of the Anti-Federalist Papers. I respect the work of the “founding fathers”, but I don’t look at those “founding fathers” behind the Federalist Papers as gods. I don’t look at any of the “founding fathers” as gods, because my God is in heaven and his son’s spirit lives in me. I don’t take membership in a political party. So I can read both sides of the argument . I won’t say I’d want a nation ruled by the Antifederalists, but on the judiciary I wish somebody had taken them more seriously. They made plenty of predictions of doom and gloom, but on some points they hit the nail on the head with precision.

Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR also has some interesting statements.

…
The Congress’s having power without control-to borrow money on the credit of the United States; their having power to appoint their own salaries, and their being paid out of the treasury of the United States, thereby, in some measure, rendering them independent of the individual states; their being judges of the qualification and election of their own members, by which means they can get men to suit any purpose; together with Col. Mason’s wise and judicious objections-are grievances, the very idea of which is enough to make every honest citizen exclaim in the language of Cato, 0 Liberty, 0 my country!
…

And the author of this particular Antifederalist paper certainly was pro-life.

…
And when the sword has decided quarrel, the scene is closed with banishments, forfeitures, and barbarous executions that entail distress on children then unborn. May Heaven avert the dreadful catastrophe!
…

Even back then they knew of abortion and even then it was seen as a horrible act by those with a solid foundation in the Lord.

Also, on the issue of slavery, in Antifederalist No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS, someone who was anti-slavery wrote the following powerful words.

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” What a strange and unnecessary accumulation of words are here used to conceal from the public eye what might have been expressed in the following concise manner: Representatives are to be proportioned among the States respectively, according to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting them, counting five slaves for three freemen.

“In a free State,” says the celebrated Montesquieu, “every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government, therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives.” But it has never been alleged that those who are not free agents can, upon any rational principle, have anything to do in government, either by themselves or others. If they have no share in government, why is the number of members in the assembly to be increased on their account? Is it because in some of the States, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow-men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty which have been publicly avowed in the late Glorious Revolution? If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the States, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented-for a great share of property in some of them consists in these animals; and they have as much control over their own actions as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, “all other persons.” By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the Union will be extremely unequal; in some of the Southern States the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves they will be entitled to a proportionate share in the legislature; this will give them an unreasonable weight in the government, which can derive no additional strength, protection, nor defense from the slaves, but the contrary. Why, then, should they be represented? What adds to the evil is, that these States are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves until the year 1808-and for every cargo of these unhappy people which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous and avaricious wretches may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those States, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the General Assembly….

- BRUTUS

I feel we have the best thing going in the entire world. But we should not be afraid to consider areas for improvement.