Kagan’s Law?

“Elena Kagan said a law banning books is okay, because the government won’t really enforce it anyway.

“And as precedent Kagan cited current U.S. immigration laws.”

- - NewsBusted, Episode 7/6/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

“Rightwing Extremism” Policy Challenged in Court

In a recent post, I indicated that the appointment of Janet Napolitano was a reason why the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are bad for Christians. While many conservatives supported these measures to combat terrorism, they are clearly violations of the 4th and 5th amendments which are now in fact being used against Christians. I didn’t specifically mention the “Rightwing Extremism” Policy which was recently instituted by Napolitano. An important development has now come to my attention regarding this. This is really serious.

Radio talkshow host Michael Savage, the Center for Bio-ethical Reform, its Execute Director Gregg Cunningham, and Iraq war veteran Kevin Murray have filed a lawsuit against Napolitano as well as Eric Holder, in their official capacities as Secretary of the DHS and Attorney General of the United States, respectively. The basis of the suit is that the “Rightwing Extremism” Policy unfairly targets those with particular views on various issues (including abortion, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, and state and national sovereignty) by violating their 5th amendment right to equal protection under the law as well as the violation of the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment. They are even targeting war veterans just for being “disgruntled”. The “Rightwing Extremism” Policy explicitly states that one of its goals is deter “rightwing extremists” in various activities deemed dangerous by the Obama administration such as engaging in paramilitary exercises.

Click here to read the complaint. Please pray for the plaintiffs, their lawyer Robert J. Muise, and the rest of the Thomas More Law Center for their success in the case. Pray that they would conduct themselves in a respectful manner (Mr. Savage has a tendency to shoot off his mouth), that the hypocrisies of the Obama administration would be exposed (especially to Christians who still don’t get it). And above all, pray that God would be glorified in this matter.

Late Night Takes – Cutting Edge Censorship

Late Night Jokes



Tonight Show with Jay Leno

● “President (Soetoro a/k/a) Obama announced he wants to trim or eliminate 120 programs. The programs he wants to eliminate? Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly . . .”

This joke is courtesy of NewsMax.com which periodically sends out an email compilation of late night jokes, few of which are worth repeating . . . this is the exception.

Perversity-Pride Parade

Homosexual Bath House Contingent in Chicago Parade

On Saturday a group of homosexuals, lesbians and transgender could be seen parading their immoral, unnatural and unhealthy lifestyles down the streets of Columbus. The hedonistic spectacle was organized by a group called “Stonewall Columbus.” Organizers claimed that 110,000 people participated in related events. This exhibition was but one of the proudly perverse parades gaining popularity across the nation. Other equally uninspiring, morally degrading fests were also conducted in other major cities like Atlanta and Chicago (photo above from this year’s Chicago Pride in Perversity Parade).

ONE SPECTATOR'S VIEW OF THE PARADE

One person who attended this event was Coach Dave Daubenmire. He comments on what it was like being there in an article he wrote, “. . . A friend once told me that I should never go to a meat packing shop and watch hot-dogs being made. If I did, he warned me, I would never eat another hot-dog as long as I lived. The same can be said for the sodomite parade. The “meat” on display will forever change the way you view homosexuality. Sin has no boundaries, no clutch, and no emergency brake. Once you dip your toe into the pool of sin, especially sexual sin, there is a magnetism that will not let go. The debauchery parading down our public streets is abominable. . .”

Coach Dave offered some additional poignant observations or what the supporters of homosexual/lesbian behavior would term “hate speech” in his article about this wicked event:

· . . . “The reprobate, [homosexual/lesbian]-affirming church is growing by leaps and bounds. I counted 16 different churches walking in the parade in support of sodomy. . . .

· “The homosexual crowd is getting younger and younger. Government school indoctrination into tolerance and diversity is winning the day. Fifteen year-old children have been lured into the trap. . . .

· “The Columbus Police Department is in the pocket of the homosexual lobby. Women with naked breasts, men with bare butts, and simulated sex-acts filled the parade as the police focused on our signs in fear that the Word of God “might offend someone.” Go downtown today, pull down your pants, and moon the passers-by and see how long it takes to get handcuffed and charged with indecency. Indecency is the theme of the [homosexual/lesbian] Parade, under the watchful eye of those sworn to protect and defend. . .”

KLEPTOMANIACS, TOO, ARE BORN THAT WAY

Don Wildmon satirically wrote an article “Kleptomaniacs are born that way” in the June/July issue of the American Family Association Journal, which I "coincidentally" received this week. I include a brief excerpt from the article below.

There is a group of individuals who are victims of persecution by our society. They are kleptomaniacs. A kleptomaniac is a person who has an irresistible desire to steal. Sociological studies have proven that 1 of every 10 people is a kleptomaniac. But because they are a small minority, they continue to suffer from the misguided efforts of society to punish them.

Despite the fact that they are born with this desire, society punishes them for practicing their desire. Laws are stacked against them, “Christian” leaders constantly condemn kleptomaniacs by twisting the Bible to say what they want it to say. Thus, this innocent minority is made to suffer simply because society sees them as a threat to established morals.

Indeed, they are one of the most persecuted groups in our society, persecuted simply because they are different. Instead of acceptance and tolerance, they suffer discrimination and condemnation. God has made kleptomaniacs the way they are. It is behavior they cannot, and should not, deny.

Kleptomaniacs are persecuted for behavior they can’t help. It is time for the American Psychological association to declare that being kleptomaniac is a normal lifestyle. . . .

We should remember another group which, until recently, faced the same problems as the kleptomaniacs. They are called homosexuals. Fortunately, our society is working hard now to make up for the mistreatment of homosexuals by giving them special rights. Surely we can extend the same rights to kleptomaniacs as we do to homosexuals.

It is time for kleptomaniacs to come out of the closet and demand their special rights . . .

You could substitute almost any law-violating activity or behavior for "kleptomania" in the above satire. The point here is that homosexual behavior is abhorrent in the eyes of God and all civilized, moral societies. You cannot make a fundamentally evil or wrong behavior good simply by declaring it so via some law. You only have to look at abortion, which is the so-called “right of a woman to kill her baby.” That ruling is immoral, unlawful, unethical and unconstitutional.

Is justice really blind in our courts?

I was on jury duty last week. After being transferred from the Grand Jury to the Petit Jury, I was called with 15 other potential jurors to a courtroom for Voir Dire. Eight of us sat in the jury box and eight sat behind the litigants. The judge asked us if we knew any of the litigants or any lawyers in the case or any lawyers that worked for the same law firm as any of the lawyers in the case. The case was a civil lawsuit, having to do with an automobile accident and medical bills which were allegedly caused by the accident.

Then the plaintiff’s attorney asked if anyone had sued, been sued, had an injury that required surgery, had physical therapy, and other such questions. If anyone said yes, then they asked more specific questions, some very personal. He also asked more questions about any connections to the legal profession that anyone had. One man said his brother was a lawyer and another juror was a legal secretary.

The defense attorney kept asking us a question about whether or not we would think that it is possible for someone to exaggerate an injury in order to win a case. The plaintiff’s attorney kept objecting, and the defense attorney kept rephrasing it. A side bar was called, the defense attorney rephrased the question again, and the plaintiff’s attorney objected again. This was an obvious ploy by the defense to plant an idea in our heads. He knew that it would be objected to and sustained.

Each lawyer seemed to try to act like they didn’t know what they were doing in order to gain our sympathy, clamoring for every inch of advantage. How pathetic.

Then the defense attorney asked us more such questions. He asked me about my occupation. I gave a technical answer about what I do (I am a scientist). One juror asked to speak with the lawyers and the judge in private and when they were done, the judge said that this juror was dismissed “with cause”. One of the other eight potential jurors was called to replace him. Then each attorney grilled this juror as they had done us.

Each attorney was allowed to remove up to three jurors without giving a reason (a peremptory challenge). The plaintiff’s attorney declined this opportunity, but the defense attorney challenged the man whose brother was a lawyer. Then I was the next to go.

I think that it is unfair to force potential jurors to answer such personal questions that have nothing to with the case. The judge’s questions were reasonable for the most part. I think that all Voir Dire questions should limited to those which determine if a juror or someone the juror knows would stand to gain anything by a certain result in the case. Attorneys should not be allowed to choose or reject jurors based on their experiences, occupation, or beliefs. I think it is especially unfair to remove jurors because they have knowledge of some subject, such as science, so that this will be to their advantage if the preponderance of scientific evidence is in favor of the opposing side. I think that peremptory challenges should be limited to one for criminal cases and none for civil cases.