Reminder to 0bama and Holder Employees
COMPUTER TRESPASS---RCW 9A.52.110---Computer trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another; and (a) The access is made with the intent to commit another crime; or (b) The violation involves a computer or database maintained by a government agency.
(2) Computer trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.
You Are Never As Anonymous As You Think!
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Really, I just found this word on another website and my initial reaction was: Say, What?
What some are trying to say has something to do with their not accepting Pope John Paul II as the Pope and successor to St. Peter. And that means to them that Pope Benedict XVI is not "their Pope" either. My response: Give it a rest, people. You're doing nothing to help build Christianity by your infighting over something that is so easily refuted. Click the link/title and you'll get an education.
Okay, directly from the source, here are two quotes for your meditations:
"The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."
Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §23 (November 21, 1964)
"That the Primacy is to be perpetuated in the successors of Peter is, indeed, not expressly stated in the words of the promise and conferring of the Primacy by Our Lord, but if flows as an inference from the nature and purpose of the primacy itself. As the function of the Primacy is to preserve the unity and solidarity of the Church; and as the Church, according to the will of her Divine Founder, is to continue substantially unchanged until the end of time for the perpetuation of the work of salvation, the Primacy also must be perpetuated. But Peter, like every other human being, was subject to death (John 21, 19), consequently his office must be transmitted to others. The structure of the Church cannot continue without the foundation which supports it (Mt. 16, 18): Christ's flock cannot exist without shepherds (John 21, 15-17)."
Dr. Ludwig Ott: "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 282 (c. 1960)
If the above is accepted as truth, then there's no room for "sedevacantism" now, is there? I can't believe that Catholics actually spend valuable time working on ways to undermine the Church when there are thousands of people who have not yet heard the Gospel.
What a waste of time and talent, huh? Now, go volunteer somewhere and live your Faith!
Early in the month, I locked my keys inside my car. The car WAS turned off, so I have a lot to be thankful for. I am also thankful that the Fire Dept. got my car door opened for free. I do have some perks having my office in the Civic Center.
Then about a week or so later, I left my car lights on all day and had a dead battery by end of day. Fortunately, a friend owns a car repair shop and sent one of his employees over to quick charge the car and get it started. I should probably buy one of those battery charging devices myself.
Why? Because within a week I had left my car lights on two more times. But only for about 15 minutes or so each time.
Then, the other day, I left my car and office keys in a restaurant I frequent. I didn't realize it until I was back at the office (I'd ridden with a friend to get lunch) and I called the establishment to learn that I had indeed left my keys there. Well, I immediately forgot about it and failed to get my co-worker to drive me back to the restaurant to retrieve my keys before the restaurant closed. So, after 7 PM, when I got off work, I couldn't find my car keys. Then I remembered I'd forgotten to go pick them up. I called the restaurant. They were closed. I called the family who owns the restaurant. No one answered. I called the drug store where the restaurant owner's father works. He wasn't working that evening. But his co-worker had his cell phone number, called him and within two minutes he called me and I explained the situation. He was on his way home, but was only about a mile from the restaurant, so he went back and got my keys and delivered them to me at the Civic Center.
April 2005 has not been the best month of my life.
On the other hand: I haven't been in any auto accidents. I haven't had a flat tire. I haven't fallen down (or up) the stairs. I haven't had a house fire. I haven't run out of gasoline (although I nearly did). I have my health. I have my friends. I have two wonderful dogs and we only had 4 accidents this month, all in the bathroom where it's easy to clean up. My parents, kids and grandkids are all fine. (And I'm one of the few people my age who still has living parents.) My son started his new job. My daughter has negotiated with her employer for less time away from home. I lost a Pope and gained a Pope. I've prayed more this month than I have in a long time. I bought a new Rosary. Two of my grandkids won Tae Kwan Do trophies. Another grandkid had a severe kidney infection and was in the hospital for a few days, but is "all well" now. All of my grandkids are Honor Roll students.
Okay, April 2005 wasn't the BEST month of my life, but . . . I really can't complain all that much after all.
So I think I'll go to sleep now and Thank God that April 2005 is nearly over!
Friday, April 29, 2005
I'm not going to quote the story, you'll have to go read it. It is a sad state of affairs brought about by the change in attitudes about the sexual nature of humans. And I use the term "humans" loosely. It's animalistic. It is worse than 'sick' it is demented. It is hellacious. It should not occur or occur only rarely in a civilized society. But the world and especially the United States is no longer civilized. We're past that. Children are not taught to "mind their manners." Adults do in public what they would not have done 50 years ago. I mean like blowing one's nose at a dinner table. Or talking 'trash' and 'gutter' in a voice loud enough to be heard a half block away. I'm talking being civil and civilized.
Civility is passe' and no one seems to mind.
Miss Manners is asked stupid questions and the questioner has no plans to actually follow her advice.
The days of demureness and acting properly in a given situation are gone.
And why? You tell me. Because we as a people, not just in the United States, but people in general, have been sliding down into the depths of depravity and have barely noticed. It started with the first "dirty word" on television. Shock, horror. But we let it pass. If we protested, we were "censors" and we were therefore "bad" for trying to protect those who didn't want protection from hearing filthy language. Then it was racial slurs. Then it was advertisements for "women's products" -- I HATE those ads today and I'm glad I no longer have to purchase them because if I did have to, I'd only buy those sold by companies who do not put that stuff on television.
Oh, remember the first time a bathroom was shown on television??? In the 1950's, couples had separate beds and no one ever went to the bathroom. Today, they can film the entire half hour television show, which by the way is a full 19 minutes of actual "show" and the remaining 11 minutes are commercials, in the bathroom. And then cut to a commercial filmed in a bathroom and the viewer doesn't know if he's watching the show or the commercial. I don't want to see your bathroom, thank you very much.
One radio commercial I absolutely loathe, it's like fingernails on a chalk board, is for a male sexual enhancer. It starts off "sex is an important part of every relationship." Balderdash. If you buy into that, you're one of the "so called humans and I use the term loosely" people. The entire concept of sex (I am assuming they mean sexual intercourse) being an important part of every relationship is one of the stupidest, ignorant-est statements I've ever heard. It has no place in a civilized society. The statement as well as what it alludes to. Grrrr.
Okay, I'm off the soap box. I don't even watch television except at work and then only rarely. I saw the twin towers get hit as a re-run while at the dentist's office on 9/11/01. I got up early and I watched Pope John Paul II's funeral on the television at work. I heard first and then saw the bells when the College of Cardinals had chosen Pope Benedict XVI, also at work. I just don't have time for it. I spend my time glued to the computer.
OH, let's wait and go there later. The computer is amoral. Remember that. It's just a tool. And as such, can be used for good or for evil. It's not the computer that is immoral or moral. It's the person using the computer who is immoral or moral.
So, the question of the day is: Are YOU civilized? Comment on what it means to be civilized in a nation which is slipping into an abyss. Or maybe you don't think it is slipping at all.
I await your comments.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
I just got off the phone with my parents. We discussed their living will. Well, I will "let them go" if there is a flat-line where a brain wave should be. But not unless and until.
My mom was a seventh grade teacher. Do you recall that "Look" that a teacher can give that lets you know you're in BIG trouble? My mom can do that look quite well. She practiced the "Look" for quite a number of years as a teacher. But I'm not worried. I live down South, they live in a Mid-Atlantic State. And neither of us has a camera set up on the computer. Yet. I better not give her any ideas. Mom says that if she is competent enough to give me that "Look" when she's "down for the count" it means "Let me go." We'll see. I prefer for her to just go to sleep one night and forget to wake up this side of heaven (I say that for her, I really mean purgatory, but don't tell her that's what I mean).
I think that the way Pope John Paul the Great died was so moving. He just said "Amen" and died. Wow. What a perfectly fantastic way to die. "Amen." "So be it." And he wasn't starved or dehydrated to death, either. He knew his time had come and that his body was shutting down. He was in a lot of pain. You can see it in his eyes and face when you look at the photos of his last few weeks among us. But he wasn't yet finished with his paperwork and kept that up until the day he died. What fortitude. "Hold on a minute, Lord, I have to sign these papers here and I'll be right with you." I doubt that was the conversation. I imagine it was more like "John Paul II, there are a few more papers for you to sign and then we'll leave for purgatory and heaven."
Okay, Mom's saying "Purgatory?" Well, yes. From New Advent dot org: "The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God."
And more, Mom: "There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect:
St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).
See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275."
You don't have to believe me, but the website is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
I was Assembly of God for over 17 years. If they can take a LATIN word, from the Vulgate, even, the Catholic Bible, and create an entire belief system of a "rapture" of the church and have hundreds of thousands of people believe that, which you have to agree is a stretch, but not accept written scripture as cited above, I question how they can believe the one and not the other.
But I'm not here to argue religion. My Church has been around since the Upper Room and is based on the heritage, faith and religion of the Jews, which has been around for a lot longer than that. (PS to my cousins: John the Baptizer did NOT institute the Baptist Church.)
Ready for comments. Mom? It won't hurt my feelings if you comment. I know you think you're always right, but on this, you're partly right.
OH, I found a great website to read the Douay-Rheims Bible. Fascinating. http://www.drbo.org/ Check it out. Read the Intro and the Prefaces. VERY educational.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
How Pope Benedict XVI will be judged by history remains to be seen. What is obvious is that those who wanted a Pope who was less Catholic are dismayed. Those who expected Pope Benedict XVI to wave his 'magic sceptor' and create a non-Catholic Church to the order of their liking are crushed.
What Pope Benedict XVI is, is Roman Catholic. He adheres to the same beliefs which have been handed down from the Upper Room, through St. Peter, and now to him. This is no easy burden. Over a billion Catholics are looking to the Pope as the final authority on all things Spiritual. And many of those billion are aware that everything has a spiritual side. There is nothing in life that does not in some form or fashion touch on the spiritual.
And that's today's exercise: Examine everything you do today for its spiritual side. Feel free to comment.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy the rule of few over many.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Did you know that only 14% of the population may not have been taught what 86% of the population has forgotten? Maybe that 14% needs a history lesson. Ya think?
In You, O Lord, do I place my trust; You will never let me be confounded.
The link in the subject line will lead you to a very provocative first message of Pope Benedict XVI, whom the Lord has called to be the leader of His Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XV pictured above, was considered a champion of peace. He was Italian-born and is best remembered for his diplomatic efforts to end conflict prior to and during World War I. By choosing the same name, Pope Benedict XVI is offering an insight into the kind of leadership he will offer the Church and the world. Just as Pope Benedict XV strove to remain neutral in his papacy at a time when Catholics were fighting on opposing sides of WWI, so Pope Benedict XVI has before him the daunting task of a papacy at a time when it appears there are Catholics on opposing sides of issues such as abortion, contraceptives, married priests, and women priests. Pope Benedict XVI has stated he wants to be a unifying influence on the Church and the world. Just as Pope Benedict XV protested against the use of weapons such as poison gas and drafted a plan to end the war, (some of which was included in US President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points peace deal in January 1918), so Pope Benedict XVI will protest against inhumane treatment of persons and for the dignity of humans. It is my hope and prayer that the nations of the world will listen to this holy man of God and will incorporate into their Constitutions, their laws, and their daily lives the same considerations for the dignity of humans.
"Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the jurisdiction of morality." Josef Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
" By allowing the rights of the weakest to be violated, the State also allows the law of force to prevail over the force of law." Josef Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
Sunday, April 17, 2005
"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.
But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.
But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers."
Although Jesus used this figure of speech, they did not realize what he was trying to tell them.
So Jesus said again, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep.
All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly."
This passage speaks to us today in a loud voice. Did Judge Greer hear the voice of Jesus when he decided to allow a woman to die at the convenience of her husband and because he (the Judge) has an agenda of death/euthanasia? Did Pope John Paul II hear the voice of Jesus in his visits to 129 Countries to speak peace to all who would listen?
We don't judge. Only God has that right. But we inspect the fruit. How healthy is your fruit? Does your fruit give life to those who partake?
If not, there is hope. Follow Church History back to the Upper Room. Then follow Peter to Rome. Be a student with a hungry mind and heart wanting to seek the Truth. Check the FRUIT and see if it is good.
"Lord, I do not presume to fathom the depths of your truths, for my understanding is not equal to the task. Nevertheless, I desire to learn Your truths in some measure—those truths that I believe and love. I do not seek to gain knowledge so that I can believe; rather, I believe so that I may gain knowledge. No matter how persistently my soul gazes, it still beholds nothing of Your beauty; my soul listens intently, and yet it hears nothing of the learning of Your Being; my soul wants to breathe in Your fragrance, and yet perceives none of it. What are You, Lord? Under what image can my heart recognize You? Truly, You are life; You are truth; You are Goodness; You are Holiness; You are eternity; You are everything good! O man, why do you roam about so far in search of good things for soul and body? Love the one Good, in whom all goods are contained, and that will satisfy you!" (St. Anselm. )
+Pace e Bene+
Saturday, April 16, 2005
This past week has really been a week of prayer for me. Suddenly, it seemed as if the man (Pope John Paul II the Great) I'd held so dear to my heart was closer in death than in life. When I pray, it seems that he's here praying with me. Maybe that doesn't make sense to someone who's not a Roman Catholic. We get accused of a lot of strange practices.
Let's look at a few.
1- We're accused of being cannibals. After all, we eat 'flesh' and drink 'blood.' Well, if you are a Christian and you have a sacrament entitled Communion (or Eucharist), what do YOU eat and drink? Crackers and juice? Wafers and wine? NOT. Go back and read the Bible and read the words with new eyes and heart.
1Cor 11:23 ff For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
2- We're accused of praying to Mary and the Saints. What? Don't you ever ask someone to pray for you when you have something very serious you need prayer for? What's the difference if we're "surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1) to ask one of those witnesses for assistance? Do you ask your Heavenly Father for your needs to be met? Well, if you knew there were friends of yours in heaven who had quick access to your Father, wouldn't you petition them for assistance? Of course you would. It's not 'what' you know, it's 'who' you know. Well, we Catholics 'know' our Blessed Mother, Mary, and a whole book full of Saints. And a good many "Blessed" who are waiting to assist us. We know and acknowledge that we are sinners and as such we petition those who are now Saints to go to our Heavenly Father on our behalf. And we show our appreciation by thanking them, by having sacramentals with their likenesses, by doing what any good Christian would do when someone has helped her. Why is that so foreign?
3- We aren't really 'Christians.' That is the funniest thing that can be said of a Catholic. HUH? We are the 'first' Christians. Follow me here: Jesus was born into a Jewish household. His parents went to Bethlehem to be registered along with all the other Jews. He is Jewish. In the upper room, right before He was crucified, He instituted the "NEW Covenant." No longer would Jews have to slaughter an unblemished lamb as an atonement for their sins. Jesus himself is the unblemished lamb and is the atonement for our sins. Acts 11:26 "For a whole year they met with the Church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians." So before that they were called?? The first believers were Jews, then Gentiles (non-Jews, just like me and maybe you) were added to the group. Then someone called these people of the "new covenant" CHRISTIANS. And since those Christians were the 'only' Christians and they were "everywhere/universal" Christians, they were called: Catholic Christians. Right! You get it now?
So, this past week, I've prayed with the heavenly assistance of John Paul the Great. Also known as Pope John Paul II.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Dear John Paul the Great, intercede for me. As one of the Cardinals said, he is closer to us now than he was when he was alive. And it truly must be so. For twenty six years, this mortal man, prepared by God to lead the Catholic Church, has been a beacon of light in a darkened world. He visited 129 Countries and met with their leaders. And in his death, he brought together thousands of dignitaries who 'shared the peace' with each other during his funeral Mass. An Israeli President shook hands with his Country's archenemies, a Syrian President and an Irani President. Only John Paul II could have accomplished that, and by the Grace of God he did. Thank you, your Holiness, John Paul the Great.
Speech Delivered by John Armor, Esq.
March for Justice II
Washington, D.C. / April 7, 2005
I'm here today because of a brilliant professor in a course I took almost by accident, 41years ago.
My last semester in college, I signed up for a course in Constitutional Law. It was taught by Dr. William Muir, a young man who was crippled and wore massive leg braces, but his mind was as sharp as any I've ever encountered.
He had a passion for the Constitution. He taught that passion to me. At Spring Break, when most of my classmates were on the beach for sun, suds and sex, I was in the library, reading dozens of Supreme Court cases for a paper for Dr. Muir.
From that day to this, and to the end of my days, I am dedicated to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Do I believe it is a perfect document? No. That's why it has an amendment clause.
But I do believe, as Prime Minister Gladstone of England said on its Centennial, it is "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." All but six of the world's nations have written constitutions. None of those has endured as long, or been as successful, as our Constitution. Most are mere window-dressing, honored more in the breech than the observance.
Now we are in the midst of a war over our Constitution. No shots will be fired. No cities attacked. But make no mistake, this is a war. If we lose it, our Constitution will die.
For three decades, I've been a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court. For more than three decades I've practiced there. I've briefed 18 cases. At the time, I considered that the highest challenge and privilege for any attorney.
My three best known cases were on behalf of presidential candidates: Gene McCarthy in 1976, John Anderson in 1980, and George W. Bush in 2000. Like most Americans, I expected the Court to enforce the Constitution. In those cases it did. But my opinion of the Supreme Court has changed radically in the last two years.
This is the certificate the Court sends you when you are admitted to the Bar of the Court. There's a dirty little secret about these certificates. About 250,000 lawyers have one of these. You fill out a form, you pay a hundred bucks, and they send you this, "suitable for framing."
For more than 99% of the members of the Supreme Court Bar, these are just wall decorations. Perhaps they think clients will walk in, see this, and say, "Wow. My attorney must be a sharp cookie. He's admitted to the Supreme Court."
Like all professional licenses, these only matter when used. The one in a hundred of us who have practiced in the Court have seen a steady deterioration in its decisions in recent years. The Court itself has abandoned the Constitution.
My breaking point was the decision in McConnell v. FEC in 2003. That was the Campaign Finance "Reform" case. Contrary to the First Amendment, five Justices of the Court decided that Congress could tell American citizens to sit down and shut up in their politics, in the months before federal elections.
Every Justice takes an oath of office to enforce the Constitution. When the Court demonstrated it did not respect the First Amendment, that was the end of my respect for the Court.
There is a black banner on my certificate, because I resigned from the Court's Bar last July after my last case was decided.
This certificate will remain in a closet, turned to the wall, until the Justices on the Court change, and the Court again enforces the Constitution. Until then, I am in mourning for that honorable document.
Last year, constitutional lawyers like me could all see what was wrong with the Court. Now, another case has made the Court's dishonesty so visible that millions of Americans, including non-lawyers, can see the problem. That second case sparked the opposition, and caused this March for Justice II.
In Roper v. Simmons this year, the juvenile death penalty case from Missouri, five Justices decided that "evolving standards of decency" allowed them to bar state juries from deciding that the very worst of juvenile murderers could be executed. This time, the Supreme Court admitted in its opinion, in front of God and everybody, that they were changing the meaning of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.
Not only did the Court rewrite the Constitution in that case, it even rejected its own decision just 16 years ago which upheld such state laws.
What's wrong with this decision, and others like it?
Let's begin with the basics. We all learned in school that our form of government has three parts, the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This is separation of powers. Each branch as a separate role; checks and balances allow each branch (theoretically) to prevent the others from encroaching on its legitimate powers.
What we see today is a fundamental failure of the American theory of government, led by five Justices who are violating their oaths of office. How do we know that? Let's look at the source materials.
Hear now the words of the Gospel according to John, James and Alexander. Jay, Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist, Chapter 78, wrote this about the federal courts:
"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...."
This was the only time in the Federalist that the authors capitalized whole words. That emphasized their meaning. Federal judges were given great freedom -- lifetime tenure and guaranteed salaries -- to decide the cases before them. But they were expected to obey and enforce the law given to them, including the Constitution.
What is the danger, when Justices take into their own hands not just the enforcement of the law, but the rewriting of the laws they are appointed to enforce?
It is the job of state legislatures and Congress to pass the laws. They are given this authority over us, because we elect them for this purpose. We have the power to defeat them for reelection if we are not content with the laws they pass.
I state this in simplest terms. Because we do not have the power of the ballot box over federal judges and Justices, they cannot possess any LEGITIMATE power to legislate over us.
The potential problem of outlaw judges is not new. Hear now these words from the Gospel according to Tom. Jefferson wrote this to Judge Spencer Roane, in 1819:
"Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given - according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others;. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
The government of the United States is the second in history to be based on the principle of popular sovereignty, and the first to establish that principle through a written Constitution. That is undermined by an unrestrained judiciary.
Note this statement by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions, 1798:
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
The entire theory of constitutional law rests on this: as the Constitution itself says, it is the "supreme Law." Either it is superior to all other laws, and to all office-holders, or, like most of the world's constitutions, it is mere decoration. No one is exempt from obedience to the Constitution, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court.
Are there Justices on the Court who see and oppose this danger? Here now these words from the Gospel according to Tony. Justice Scalia wrote this in his stinging dissent from the five-Justice majority in Roper v. Simmons:
"What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years - not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency" ... of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter.... The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards - and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures."
In short, what we have here is not "evolving standards of decency," but devolving standards of judicial dishonesty. Five Justices of the Court deliberately trampled on the Constitution, and deliberately violated their oaths of office. They did so by violating the plain language of that document, and the plain descriptions of the proper roles of federal judges, as laid out by the Framers.
Outlaws who wear masks and carry guns are a danger to us, one at a time. But outlaws who wear black robes and carry gavels are dangerous to all of us at once. The danger is not just to specific laws, like the juvenile death penalty ones in 19 states. It is to ALL laws, in all states and in the federal government.
After our God-given rights, the Declaration of Independence states our basic political rights:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."
This right is guaranteed by the amendment provisions in Article V. We the people are the ultimate sovereign power. We established the Constitution. Through elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures, we have the power to change it at any time. Most recently, we used that power to establish the Madison Amendment in 1992.
But nowhere does Article V give any power to five Justices of the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution for us (presumably because we were too stupid to realize the need for a particular amendment).
What philosophy do these outlaw Justices follow? Plato's Republic provides the answer. In his system, a small number of men would be well-educated in aspects of Greek society. Then, with their special preparation, they would rule over the people as philosopher-kings.
Benevolent dictatorship never was, and never should be, the American system of government. Judges who think that way are UNFIT to sit on any bench at any level in America, most especially on the Supreme Court.
The question then is, how are we going to deal with this assault on the very heart of the theory of American government?
Impeachment of Justices who deliberately violate their oaths of office is not a remedy. A majority of the House might vote to impeach. But not in the foreseeable future will two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict and remove such Justices. Entirely too many Senators like outlaw Justices to impose their personal will whenever they choose. Jefferson himself referred to the remedy of impeachment as "a scare-crow."
What other remedies are available?
There is an interim solution to some problems. Congress can withdraw the jurisdiction of the federal courts from cases concerning the Ten Commandments or the national motto, "In God we trust." We take matches away from children because they might burn down the house. The same applies to Justices of the Court. They cannot be trusted with the Constitution; they are burning it down a clause at a time.
There are other examples. Consider the frequent cases which drag a highly-paid federal judge and his staff into the T-shirt policy of South Succotash High School. Please. Is that what the Framers created the federal courts for? Take these matches, too, away from childish judges.
The total solution, however, requires replacing the outlaw Justices with ones who will obey the Constitution.
I won't be crass and describe the ages and infirmities of individual Justices. I expect Chief Justice Rehnquist to soldier on to the end of the 2004 Term and then resign. I expect the President to name Justice Scalia to become Chief Justice. That change will make no difference in the Court's balance of power.
The next two resignations from the Court will probably be Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor, also in June. Justice Ginsburg has been hard-wired from the beginning that the Court can do whatever it chooses, and should rely on foreign laws and decisions. Justice O'Connor did not start out that way; but she has gone over to the dark side recently.
Given the ages of seven of the Justices, President Bush may make more than just three appointments in his final years. The more there are, the more likely the Court as an institution will respect and protect the Constitution for the next generation, rather than subvert and rewrite it.
Replacement of Scalia, O'Connor and Ginsburg, is the key to the remedy. The three new Justices named by the President and affirmed by the Senate must be men or women who understand that the role of a Justice is not to rewrite the laws, or worse, to rewrite the Constitution, but to obey and enforce them.
Every nominee for the Court should be asked just two questions: "What is the job description of a judge?" If the nominee gets that answer right, the next question is: "How does your career demonstrate that you live by that description?"
Think about it. If you apply to be a fry cook at McDonald's, they expect you to understand the job, and be willing to do it. Why should we expect any less of a Justice on the Court?
Every one of you, every person who hears or reads these words, everyone who genuinely respects the Constitution, must do all you can to encourage the confirmation of law-abiding Justices to those three vacancies.
Because this is a war, we expect the opposition to fight to the death, metaphorically. When it comes to the Supreme Court, some of the Democrats who have filibustered judicial nominees in the past, and threatened to continue that, have backed off. Several have said that for a Supreme Court nominee they will not obstruct an "up or down vote."
Lower court vacancies cause years of delay for tens of thousands of civil case trials, involving the interests of millions of Americans. Court-watchers have recognized this problem for years. But most Americans haven't seen this as an urgent concern.
The same is not true of an empty chair at the Supreme Court. Even the New York Times might notice that. The American people will not tolerate a two-year delay in filing one of those chairs. Members on both side of the Senate aisle will act to end such a delay, and cause an up-down vote.
We cannot overstate the stakes here. The bloodless but critical battle we are entered into was best described a century and a half ago. From the Gospel according to Abe, in The Gettysburg Address:
"... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
One of the most memorable lines by President Ronald Reagan, and also the symbol of his greatest achievement, was delivered in Berlin when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Now it is time for us to say to President George W. Bush that he must end the outlaw behavior of a majority of the Justices. "Mr. President, tear down this Court."
This is more important than mere election of a President. That is for only four years. This is for thirty years, and perhaps for the whole future of the Constitution. No retreat, no compromise. We should not falter, we cannot fail.
Seated: Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
Standing: Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Monday, April 04, 2005
Civility is passe' and no one seems to mind.
Miss Manners is asked stupid questions and the questioner has no plans to actually follow her advice.
The days of demureness and acting properly in a given situation are gone.
And why? You tell me. Because we as a people, not just in the United States, but people in general, have been sliding down into the depths of depravity and have barely noticed. It started with the first "dirty word" on television. Shock, horror. But we let it pass. If we protested, we were "censors" and we were therefore "bad" for trying to protect those who didn't want protection from hearing filthy language. Then it was racial slurs. Then it was advertisements for "women's products"vism.
We now look forward to the reign of a new Pope. We hope that the new Pope will continue John Paul II’s ecumenical work by accepting the biblical doctrines of justification by faith, the priesthood of the believer, and the authority of the scriptures. We are aware that those are radical changes, but they must be done if Christendom is to be united again.
By the way, the Master has an excellent article on the Pope:
The Power of Faith
Sunday, April 03, 2005
PSALMUS 23 (22)
1 PSALMUS. David.
Dominus pascit me, et nihil mihi deerit:
2 in pascuis virentibus me collocavit,
super aquas quietis eduxit me,
3 animam meam refecit.
Deduxit me super semitas iustitiae propter nomen suum.
4 Nam et si ambulavero in valle umbrae mortis,
non timebo mala, quoniam tu mecum es.
Virga tua et baculus tuus,
ipsa me consolata sunt.
5 Parasti in conspectu meo mensam
adversus eos, qui tribulant me;
impinguasti in oleo caput meum,
et calix meus redundat.
6 Etenim benignitas et misericordia subsequentur me
omnibus diebus vitae meae,
et inhabitabo in domo Domini
in longitudinem dierum.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
I was at Vatican City in May of 2001. Although I didn't get to see the Pope, as our tour left the day of his Wednesday audience, I could sense his presence. I think it was then that I began my devotion to the Holy Father.
Good night, Papa, rest in the arms of our Blessed Lady and her Son. Your journey as a pilgrim is complete.
"We love death. The United States loves life. That is the big difference between us." – Osama bin Laden
"I have been made victorious through terror." Muhammad, founder of Muhammadism now called Islam (Submit or Die)