The Right State

The 9^th Circuit Court is out of control.  Over and over again they have shown themselves to be out of the mainstream, out of touch with the American people, and have illustrated a stunning disregard for the United States Constitution.

Government libraries can block religious groups from worshipping in public meeting rooms, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision came from a case involving the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries, a Christian group which won a court order allowing them to hold a “prayer, praise and worship” service in meeting rooms open to other groups at a Contra Costa County library branch. A federal judge said it had a First Amendment right of religion to use the public’s facilities.

But a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in a 2-1 decision.

“Prohibiting Faith Center’s religious worship services from the Antioch meeting room is a permissible exclusion of a category of speech,” Judge Richard Paez ruled.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending the church group, called the decision “astounding.” The group, he said, would consider appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court or asking the appeals court to reconsider. (emphasis added by TRS)

Not a permissible exclusion of a category of speech?  It’s not like someone is yelling fire in a theater.  The Contra Costa County Attorney, who brought this suit, is going way too far.  The rights of individuals and their freedom to assemble, their freedom of speech and to worship freely are being infringed upon.  I wish I knew why this suit was brought in the first place.  If the church services were hindering those who wanted to use other library services, then something should have been worked out.  But to force the end of the church meetings goes completely against what the writers of the Constitution had intended.

Not everyone in the 9^th Circuit Court has totally lost their minds.  One, Judge Richard Tallman says the county went too far.

“Rather than adopting a policy of neutrality and placing reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on every group that uses the library meeting rooms, the county has gone to great lengths to exclude a non-disruptive community group based on the views it wishes to express,” Tallman wrote.

Absolutely!  If this continues, it will not be long before churches will even have their tax exemptions tested before the courts.  If this has shown anything, it is that Christianity is under attack.  With help from the ACLU and liberal courts like the 9^th Circuit, even worshiping in public may be a thing of the past.

Stop the ACLU has more.

Tags: Religion, Judges by Chuck
No Comments »

Sometimes I wonder whose side the ACLU is actually on when it comes to the Global War on Terror.  They have filed lawsuit after lawsuit challenging almost every tool at our government’s disposal to keep America safe.  You would think by the very name of the organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, they would be for at least some of the things which make this country great, God, the military, patriotism and the Constitution.  This ultra liberal organization has gone as far as redefining patriotism from being proud of the accomplishments of the United States and its history to apologizing for its faults and defending those who attack us.  This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom and yet the ACLU has made every attempt to take God out of our country.  This country was founded on the idea that people have the right to defend themselves and yet the ACLU wants to outlaw guns.  And now they are trying to protect the same people who are trying to kill us.  This organization is trying to protect them from the United States government which is charged with protecting us.

The Bush administration on Friday asked a federal judge to delay enforcing her order for a halt to the government’s warrantless communications surveillance program.

The Justice Department argued that ending the intelligence-gathering program threatens “the gravest of harms to the government and to the American public” and leaves the country “more vulnerable to terrorist attack.”

“We respectfully submit that this court should not override the national security judgment of the president and the nation’s senior intelligence officers regarding the harm that would result” from the program’s suspension, the government lawyers argued in a motion filed with the court.

Why doesn’t the ACLU get it?  The terrorists want to kill all of us, not just Republicans.  They will kill flower children as quickly as they would soldiers.  They hate us, period.  Why is that so difficult to comprehend?  It is almost as if the ACLU does not understand the nature of the warrantless surveillance program.  This is from their own website.

Too many people think we can stop terrorism by monitoring all the hundreds of millions of people who live in America, and by removing the legal safeguards that protect us against government spying.

The problem is, the government is not interested in domestic phone calls, nor do they listen to private phone calls unless those calls either originate in countries that sponsor terrorism or the phone calls are made to those countries.  The ACLU says that the President violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by secretly okaying the surveillance (of course they would defend the New York Times for releasing this super secret information), when most of the FISA judges says the President Bush did not violate the law.

After a while of reading some of the lawsuits filed by the ACLU, I get the distinct feeling they care more about achieving an agenda than protecting the Constitution of the United States.  Robert Novak wrote that our activist courts are in a state of chaos.

The background of a federal district court declaring President Bush’s national security eavesdropping unconstitutional was a conservative’s fantasy. The judge, a former Democrat politician and civil rights activist, wrote what read more like a political manifesto than a judicial opinion. What’s more, she was responsible for contributions to an organization that was a plaintiff in the case she decided.

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s decision has been stayed and probably will be reversed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, she was playing more than a cameo role on the stage of history. For this opinion ever to have been issued by an activist judge in Detroit, in the opinion of several legal scholars and distinguished lawyers whom I contacted, shows the judiciary in a state of chaos.

Taylor ended up with the case because of forum-shopping: filing multiple lawsuits in quest of a favorable venue. With the executive and legislative branches in Republican hands, liberals count on activists in the federal judiciary such as Judge Taylor. That explains why normally censorious legal scholars tend to excuse her shoddy judicial opinion and ethical trespassing.

In picking Judge Taylor, the ACLU should have done their homework.  This woman is wacky.  In her opinion she wrote: “There are no hereditary kings in America.”  Phrases like these tend to make me scratch my head and say, “Huh?!”  But to the point, this liberal organization went court shopping in order to secure a verdict of their liking.  It was not about protecting the constitution or protecting someone’s social security check from the vile clutches of an evil government.  This lawsuit was about winning against a Republican President.

The President is charged with protecting the people of the United States, while the ACLU seems to believe it is their duty to protect everyone else from the United States.  The sad thing is they really do not believe they are hurting America by their litigious behavior.  It is incredibly dangerous to be speeding down a one-way street going the wrong way with your eyes closed, which is exactly what the ACLU is doing.  Their idiotic behavior is endangering the American people and they do not even know it.  Or even scarier, they do know they are endangering the American people and they just don’t care.  Either way, the ACLU and their ultra liberal henchmen judges are a danger to the United States.

Tags: Terrorism, President Bush, Judges, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

Ouch!  That is just about all anyone can say after Bryan Cunningham of National Review took U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s to task for writing her opinion overturning the warrantless wiretapping case.  How is Bryan Cunningham qualified to question the judge’s decision you may ask?  Cunningham has been in a senior position in the CIA and has served as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.  Today he is a privacy lawyer in Denver, Colorado.

Cunningham starts by giving Judge Taylor the benefit of the doubt for giving such a stupid ruling by saying she ‘hears the footsteps’ of the evil Bush administration.  But then, he takes her to task for her sloppy legal work.

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.

Cunningham goes on to show that the Judge did not do her homework, failed to look at any evidence, did not understand the wiretapping law, and did not show with any constitutional reason why the warrantless wiretapping program is illegal.

More worrisome still are the judge’s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments—errors that would earn our first-year law student an “F.” Here’s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.” She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is “reasonable.”

And the hits just keep on coming.

Amateur hour? Judge Taylor, a law professor, has been on the bench since 1979. She is decidedly not an amateur. So, how to explain her first-year failing-grade opinion? Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain. (emphasis by TRS)

As I said earlier, ouch!  Many people in America still hold judges in high opinion.  Unfortunately, this view does not take into account Jimmy Carter appointees like Taylor who seem to be able to ruin the whole batch.  Judges are supposed to uphold the law and the Constitution.  When a conflict between the two arises, the Constitution has precedent.  In the case of the warrantless wiretapping program, this Judge Taylor obviously did not need any evidence; she had already made up her mind how she was going to rule, thereby breaking one of the major commandments on the bench.

What is really disturbing is that this judge wants to end a powerful tool used to combat terrorism during wartime.  President Bush has used this tool effectively to keep America safe for the last five years.  And warrantless wiretapping program was instrumental in catching the British airline bombers. Wanting to end such an effective program at keeping America safe defies comprehension….unless you are one of these liberal moonbats who think President Bush is trying to curb all rights.

I can not see any circuit judge letting this ruling stand.  And I particularly don’t see the US Supreme Court letting the ruling stand.  America is at war, these judges need to make sure they are on our side.

Hat tip: BlackFive

Tags: Terrorism, President Bush, Moonbats, Judges, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Finally the House gets around to protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from activist judges who seem to have forgotten this nation’s history. The bill passed 260-167, but insiders say passage in the Senate is uncertain.

The House, citing the nation’s religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop anyone from reciting it because of the phrase “under God.” (emphasis by TRS)

There are some of the more liberal members of Congress who do not like the idea of skirting off an area from the ever watchful eyes of the courts citing separation of powers. Unfortunately for them, I believe Congress has the right and the ability to shield certain laws from the courts. They have done so in the past and will continue to shield certain laws. Lawmakers from both sides have been all over this hot-button issue.

The quote of the day from the liberal of liberals, Democrat Senator Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who states in all seriousness:

“We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States, which, thank God, will fail,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (emphasis added by TRS)

This extreme liberal of liberals, invokes the name of God while supporting taking God out of our Pledge. Sometimes I wonder what planet Pelosi is really from.

Fox News has a short history of the Pledge of Allegiance from conception to its final change in 1954. All of which shows the Pledge is an intricate part of American society. From the time kids first start school, they learn the words which instills a sense of patriotism. It also gives credit where credit is due. This country has become a force for good in the world only because of our Lord.

As John Winthrop said in 1630 in his “City Upon a Hill” speech, (I will paraphrase because of the words and length) that if this new country keeps God at its center, then He will bless us and allow us to resist a thousand of our enemies. We would become like a City Upon a Hill for all the world to see. But if we deal falsely with our God, then He will withdraw His blessings and make this new country a story and a by-word throughout the world as an example to those who turn from God.

The history of the United States is a history which recognized God and His blessings. Protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from activist judges is recognition of this history. Thank God the House of Representatives had the courage to defend the Pledge of Allegiance as it now stands.

Hat tip: Right Wing News

Tags: Democrats, History, Culture, Judges, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

The opinion by Federal Judge Sparks to keep Tom Delay on the Ballot in Texas is dead wrong, for the very reason the feds stayed out of the 2002 Senate race in New Jersey; this is a state issue, not a federal issue.  Tom Delay has moved to Virginia several months before the mid-term election allowing State Republican Chairwoman Tina Benkiser to name a replacement.  Delay is no longer a Texas citizen, he can’t run for office.

Why is it that the Democrats can do this but Republicans can’t?  In the 2002 mid-term election Bob Torricelli removed himself for the running for the Senate becoming involved in a scandal a mere 43 days, I think, before the election.  In his place the Democrats convinced Frank Lautenberg to come out of retirement to hold on to the seat.  And Torricelli did not even leave the state!  The courts rightly decided the issue of who runs and is qualified to hold office should be decided by the states with the caveat they meet the Federal age and residency requirements.  The Constitution sets the age at twenty-five and leaves the residency requirement up to the individual states.  And here comes this judge who makes his decision on what might happen.

During a June 21 hearing, Judge Sparks expressed concern that under the GOP interpretation, a party might “manipulate” the rules for its own benefit by replacing nominees it fears might lose.

The U.S. Constitution establishes that a candidate for Congress is eligible if he or she is 25 years old, a citizen and an inhabitant of the state when elected.

In his opinion, Judge Sparks said there was no assurance that Mr. DeLay would not return to Texas and be an inhabitant on Election Day.

“There is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone on Nov. 7, 2006, the only day that matters” under the Constitution, the judge said. (emphasis added by TRS)

Judge Sparks was grasping at straws when he made his decision.  And judge worth his salt will not make a decision on what might happen.  The decision is ludicrous.  Using his decision, no one in the state of Texas should have a voter registration card, because we might leave the state before the election.

Outside the Beltway notes something that I had forgotten, according to New Jersey law, Torricelli name should not have been taken off the ballot.

Republicans might note with some chagrin, and perhaps a touch of irony, that New Jersey Democrats successfully replaced Robert Torricelli, similarly affected with concerns about his character, with Frank Lautenberg less than a month before the 2002 election and in rather flagrant violation of state law requiring such a change be made at least 48 days in place of an election. That action was affirmed by the NJ Supreme Court, which argued that the law unfairly deprived residents of a competitive election, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Amazing.  When judges interfere in areas where they have no compelling interest, we are all in trouble.

Tags: Democracy, Judges, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

I am finally able to post after returning from the Texas GOP Convention. I want to write about some of the impressions I got from the Convention while they are still fresh in my mind.

The Convention delegates selected their first black Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas in Dr. Robin Armstrong. The new leader is the first African-American to serve in his position since Reconstruction. I believe Armstrong will be an effective leader having been involved in grass-roots Conservative movement for the past eight years in Galveston. This flies in the fact face of the words of DNC leader Howard Dean when he said the only blacks at a GOP Convention were the cleaning crews. Shows what he knows.

There were several speakers including John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutcheson, Rick Perry, and many Congressmen and women. I came away from the Convention with several impressions.

First, Republicans stand united against illegal immigration. John Cornyn stated that he regretted he had only one vote against that bad Senate bill. Fortunately for us, the Senator has been appointed to the Conference Committee to merge the two competing bills.

Kevin Brady (R-TX) also had some strong words for Senate Immigration Bill. ‘Yes, the House will stand united against the Senate immigration bill. And No, I don’t know what the Senate was thinking.’ Brady also had blistering words for Senator John McCain saying ‘the Senator should know when he gets in bed with Senator Ted Kennedy, he can expect more than just sleep’. (Quotes are paraphrased-based on notes)

Governor Rick Perry is very much against providing illegal immigration with social services. He also spoke against the ‘catch and release’ program the government is now conducting. The Governor stated that the national government might as well play that South West Airlines phrase: “Ding, you are free to move about the country.”

Second, the Republicans support the War in Iraq, they support the troops, and they support the GWOT. They all understood why we are in this war; we were attacked. They also understand the way to win this war is to take it to our enemies. As Kay Bailey Hutcheson said, “Never Again!” Never again will we treat terrorism as a crime, never again will we respond to terrorist attacks with a few lame missiles, never again will we do nothing to defend this country while there are those who would do us harm. This is a war in which we are ‘fighting for our children’s future.” The Senator also stated that ‘the best weapon we have against terrorism is the American soldier.’ Amen to that.

Third, the Republicans stood united against gay marriage, raising taxes and activist judges.

As expected, one thing Republicans did not do was to distance themselves from President George W. Bush. And one thing Republicans never do is to leave God out. Of course I have to wonder if Democrats have something like a Prayer Rally? Doubt it.

It was a great weekend for conservatives. All in all, I feel good about the Republicans chances of holding on to their majorities in both the Senate and the House.

Tags: Immigration, President Bush, Heroes, National Elections, Judges, Supreme Court, Politics, Iraq, War by Chuck
7 Comments »

There are six months until the midterm election which may determine the future of the Global War on Terror and the future of George W. Bush as president of the United States.  You could write an entire volume of books on the critical Senate and Congressional district elections and their ramifications.  The main question is what will happen if the Democrats win in 2006, and how can Republicans stop it?

Considering the rhetoric of the Democrats on the GWOT, they will want do a Bill Clinton and pull troops back into the US.  This view says we are the reason for all of the terrorist attacks.  A view of a terrorist timeline shows that this did not keep us safe in Clinton’s eight years in office, World Trade Center-1993, Khobar Towers bombing-1996, Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanziania-1998, USS Cole bombing-2000, though this protectionist view does have its supporters on both sides of the isle.  Disengaging from the terrorists now would encourage al-Qaeda into attacking us every time they we do something they don’t like.  President Bush is the first president to take the fight to the terrorists.  And so far, his plan has kept America safe.

Also at stake is the future of George W. Bush as president of the United States.  The left, particularly the moveon.org and dailykos crowds, will demand impeachment proceedings if the Democrats win a majority in Congress.  Their continuing efforts to undermine the President in a time of war has invigorated too many of the left for them to stop at just winning an election.  The issues of the reasons for going to war in Iraq and wiretapping will lead the Democrats to obey the wishes of the moonbats and indict the wartime President.   President Bush is doomed if the Democrats win.

The Republicans can play the game of, “I told you so,” if they win.  As more and more of Saddam’s memos are interpreted, expect a growing mountain of evidence showing Iraq had WMDs, that he did work with terrorist.  The President is fighting a war to protect the US with Afghanistan and Iraq as only the first shots in the Global War on Terrorism.  Republicans need to spread the word; the GWOT is paramount to the security of this country.  We have the terrorists on the run.  Cutting and running will not keep us safe and will only embolden those who wish to do us harm.

Another benefit will be the sure appointment of strict-constructionist judges to the bench ensuring the rights of Americans to be free of government interference, the safety of the freedom of religion, and defining a marriage as between one man with one woman.

Unfortunately to win the Republicans have to energize a base dissatisfied with Congress’ addiction to spending and earmarks.  Past elections have show the public likes to punish those in power for perceived grievances.  The issues this election will be the GWOT, the wiretapping, and high gas prices.  The low poll numbers for George Bush is proving to be a detriment in the short term to Republicans.  But don’t count out the President’s ability to draw in the base in like he did in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

As of right now, Republicans hold a 29 seat advantage in the House of Representatives and a 10 seat advantage in the Senate.  It would take a huge turnaround for the Democrats to win both houses of Congress, which I consider unlikely.  One of the problems in passing legislation is the RINOs, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and John McCain.  It would be nice if we could get rid of these guys and elect true conservatives to their seats.  But as long a the electorate dislikes Congress but like their own Representative, these RINOs will continue winning in their states.

My first step in helping the Republicans maintain a majority in Congress is to help Iraq War veteran Van Taylor defeat liberal Democrat Chet Edwards. I am not, nor have I ever been, satisfied with Chet Edwards.  Defeating him must be a priority in District 17-Texas.

While Republicans may be dissatisfied with the spending of their representatives, they can not, must not, stay home during the election of 2006.  The safety of this country may very well hinge on the outcome of this election.  The 2006 midterm election is that important.

Tags: Moonbats, Judges, Iraq, Politics by Chuck
1 Comment »

Why are the democrats in Ohio supporting a judge who went easy on a man who raped two young boys over a period of three years? The judge says the man has a disease just like he does. (The judge is an alcoholic). This same thing went on in Vermont where a judge went easy on a child rapist. What is going on here? This should an issue where the Democratic Party can show they are for the common man. Instead they are protecting the very people who are preying on the weakest members of our society. If the republicans do not use this issue to elect more conservatives to their respective state legislatures, then we really are doomed. Both judges, Cashman and Connor should have been removed from office. They do not need to be removed for making unpopular decisions; they need to be removed for not protecting the very society that elected them to their respective positions.

Tags: Judges by Chuck
No Comments »