Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

URGENT ALERT: Elena Kagan is lying

Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 2:07 pm |

It’s terrible that Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is lying to Congress. She’s denying that she tried to kick military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law School, when she did. She’s as liberal and make-up-the-law-as-you-go as Obama’s Appeals Court nominee Goodwin Liu, but this week is distancing herself from him. She won’t give simple “yes or no” answers but instead is behaving like a professional liar as she artfully doesn’t answer question after question. For lying under oath, she should be held in contempt of Congress.

But what’s worse is that Republican Senators are letting Kagan get away with it. They are being much too polite in the hearings, not not demanding “yes or no” answers, not calling her the liar she is, and not promising to oppose her with everything they’ve got. Consider the demand for specific answers from corporate leaders who’ve testified before Congress!

Instead of handling Kagan with kid gloves, Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee ought to be pounding away at her liberal philosophy, liberal past policies, and her refusal to adhere to the WRITTEN U.S. Constitution. More importantly, Republicans ought to publicly call her a liar for testifying falsely and then announce they’ll LEAD A FILIBUSTER on the floor. A filibuster is the only way to STOP KAGAN from getting on the high court where this liberal judicial activist, approved by Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats, will RULE OVER US ALL FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS.

DO YOUR PART RIGHT NOW

Click here to email and call U.S. Republican senators to demand they filibuster Kagan

LEARN MORE

SaveCalifornia.com Bulletin: Why Kagan must be stopped

NPR: Republican Jeff Sessions implies Kagan is lying (quietly outside committee)

ABCNews: Sen. Coburn: Kagan ‘Ignorant’ of Constitutional Principles

MassResistance: How Elena Kagan helped “queer” Harvard Law School

Phllyis Schlafly: Elena Kagan should be rejected

American Family Association: Obama’s court pick Kagan is a dangerous judicial activist

Who will stand up for me against evildoers?
Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?

Psalm 94:16 NASB

PODCAST: Cross of Christ battle in Mojave Desert

Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 8:35 pm | admin

…not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
“The Separation of Church and State,” David Barton, Wallbuilders, Jan. 2001

Why has a prominent cross of Jesus Christ in California’s Mojave Desert been covered up, stolen, replaced, torn down, replaced, and torn down again? Why does Barack Obama’s Dept. of the Interior keep tearing down the cross when there’s no court ruling demanding it? What can you do about this?

Listen to the SaveCalifornia.com Radio Show as Victorville-area activist Barb Stanton and Liberty Counsel constitutional attorney Mary McAlister join SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson. Together, they explain how liberal organizations, judicial activists and the Obama Administration are attacking religious freedom, and how you can fight against this evil.

Listen right now
Listen on iTunes
Listen later, get action steps and more information

But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Galatians 6:14 NASB

What’s at stake with Prop. 8 back in court

Monday, January 11, 2010, 12:55 pm |

What’s the deal with Prop. 8 being challenged in federal court?

As someone who has been fighting for marriage licenses and marriage rights since 1994 in the California Legislature and since 2003 in the courts, I can tell you a few things.

First of all, you need to know that homosexual activists are trying any means possible to knock down Californians’ 2008 vote to reserve marriage licenses for a man and a woman. These intolerant activists lost in state court, so now they’re trying the federal courts.

Ultimately, for homosexual activists, the case being heard today in San Francisco is about two goals:

1) Keeping the homosexual “marriage” agenda in the media to help them launch their own constitutional amendment next year for the 2012 ballot (they won’t be on the 2010 ballot, despite what you may have heard);

2) Working hard to have non-immutable homosexual behavior declared a civil right, something no federal court has ever said or ordered.

Because Judge Vaughn Walker is allowing unprecedented cross-examination of “witnesses” and has ordered the oral arguments posted on YouTube (he’s been temporarily blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court on an 8-1 vote), the judge is aiding the homosexual activists who want to charge up their supporters and use video of pro-marriage attorneys in future TV ads. The judge is turning this into a public relations circus.

And because Prop. 8 attorneys have chosen to operate alone in court, and are nearly completely focusing on defending marriage licenses for a man and a woman, homosexual activists and their greater number of pro-homosexuality parties in court have the upper hand in making arguments to get their behavior declared a civil right with the enforcement power of the federal government.

If this San Francisco judge overturns Prop. 8, his decision will likely be “stayed” (won’t go into effect) pending the near-guaranteed appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Given those judges’ liberal legacy, their bad decision would absolutely have to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given the high court’s current makeup and projecting out one or two years when they could decide the case, I would expect Prop. 8 to ultimately be upheld by two or more votes. The Supreme Court has held, over and over and as late as 2003, that marriage is the sole jurisdiction of states.