www site     

HomeStoreAboutTotal TruthBlogContactDonateSpeakingArchives
pro-existence banner no. 2 black by Rick and Nancy Pearcey.jpg

Friday, November 1, 2013

Judge: Courts Can’t Be "Swayed by Christian Values" or Promote "Virtue and Morality"

By Rick Pearcey • November 1, 2013, 03:17 PM

Hilary White reports at LifeSiteNews:

Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the British court system has said that only "secular" judges can serve a "multicultural" society, and that judges must not "be swayed by Christian values."

"A secular judge must be wary of straying across the well-recognized divide between church and state," Munby said in a speech to the first annual conference of the Law Society’s family law section in London. . . .

Munby disparaged "Victorian judges" who promoted "virtue and morality." Such judges discouraged "vice and immorality" while maintaining a "very narrow view of sexual morality."

"Critics say that Justice Munby’s religious statements fly in the face of Britain’s constitution, with its officially established Church of England, with Queen Elizabeth II as its Supreme Governor," White reports.

Related
Mainstream Valedictorian Defies Secular Extremism 
Why We Revolt: Cheerleaders Violate "Separation of Church and State"? 
What Is Killing the Western World?


Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Mat Staver on Supreme Court: No "Right to Same-Sex Marriage" in U.S. Constitution

By Rick Pearcey • March 26, 2013, 03:58 PM

The following press announcement was released today by Liberty Counsel:

Washington, D.C. -- Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented regarding the oral arguments made today before the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry on Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative defining marriage as one man and one woman.

"No one can predict how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the Prop 8 case, but based on oral arguments today, it is possible a majority of Justices could rule that the proponents of Prop 8 lack standing and dismiss the case.

"If that happens, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would be dismissed, leaving perhaps only the Northern District of California court ruling. This would mean the ruling applies only to the northern part of California.

"It is possible the Court could even dismiss the district court ruling and save the issue of marriage for another case. Of course, there is always the possibility the Court could issue a limited ruling or a broad ruling on the matter.

"If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way and rules that there is somehow a 'constitutional right to same-sex marriage,' it will become, in my view, an illegitimate arbiter of the rule of law. It will have lost its legitimacy in its entirety, and will have just simply morphed into a political machine.

"Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage," said Staver.

"The natural family is fundamental to our very existence. Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens. Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman,” Staver concluded.

Liberty Counsel submitted an amicus brief on this case to the Supreme Court and has defended many marriage laws in California since 2004.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

Related
Update: 1.4 MILLION French March Against Homosex "Marriage" 
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"


Sunday, March 3, 2013

Obama DOJ: Children Do Not Need -- and Have No Right to -- Mothers

By Rick Pearcey • March 3, 2013, 08:07 PM

Terence P. Jeffrey reports at CNSNews.com:

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

To support its argument, the Obama administration cites "a 'policy statement' by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be 'superior' to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households," reports CNSNews.

Comment: Once again, the extremism of Mr. Obama and his radical regime expresses itself. In this case he discriminates against the Creator and the the Creator's norms for the healthy human family.

This discrimination will be baited and sold as "fairness" and "equality," but it is utterly unfair and an equality of cruelty. For it expresses hatred against what is best for children who are created to survive and thrive in real marriages and not in counterfeit "families" of two moms or three dads, depending upon the latest "scientific" social construct created on demand in the basement of the White House. 

Rather than subject children to state-imposed homosexualist intolerance against the human family -- created to express the diversity of male and female within the liberating unity of married life -- these know-nothing radicals would deny that children are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

Needless to say, nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution legitimizes or authorizes Mr. Obama and his authoritarian disciples to seek to impose, by judicial fiat, their private value systems and belief constructs upon real children who need real families.

This kind of radicalism against the mainstream of the rules of freedom and the human community as centered on the Creator and not the state -- nor on the feelings of the Democrat Party -- ought to be rejected out of hand and exposed for extremism for which it stands. Children need moms, not tyrants. Make love, not hate.

Related Adoption
Adoption Institute Report Written by Pro-Homosexual Advocate
French Protests: Marriage = One Man + One Woman 
Pro-Same-Sex "Marriage" Lesbian: "Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist"


Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Whiny Atheists Protest Charlie Brown Christmas Special

By Rick Pearcey • November 28, 2012, 09:54 AM

Doug Giles writes

The atheists I grew up with in Texas were a tad bit pluckier than today’s lardy hagfish atheists who file lawsuits every winter when they see a child wrapped in swaddling clothes.

Yep, the anti-theists I used to hang out with in the Lone Star state were rugged individualists who were so busy milking this existence that they didn’t have time to bleat like a stuck sheep because a plastic baby Jesus statue endangered their delicate beliefs.

Related
Atheists Don't Own Reason
Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics "May Not Be Bad"


Saturday, October 27, 2012

Judge Approves of Texas Plan to Defund Planned Parenthood

By Rick Pearcey • October 27, 2012, 11:01 AM

Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews.com:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear Planned Parenthood's complaint about a Texas law that bars their participation in the state’s Medicaid program on Thursday, allowing Texas to withhold state funds from the abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood argued unsuccessfully that the law violates Medicaid patients’ constitutional rights.

The “ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women’s Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion,” said Governor Rick Perry celebrating the decision.

“In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.”

Bravo, Texas! You are on the right side of science, ethics, and reality-oriented language, not to mention the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.

And bravo, Texas! For standing up to Planned Parenthood, which is neo-fascist and immoral and extremist in its bloody profitable practice of imposing torture and death upon innocent human life. 

And shame on you, Planned Parenthood. Keep your reproductive fascism off the bodies of the "least of these." And quit trying to steal funds entrusted into our stewardship by the Creator so that you can selfishly profit in death.

Related
Church Sign: "Abortionists Target Black Babies"
Pro-Abort Activist Can't Bring Herself to Say "Heartbeat"
Abortofascism and Free-Market Homicide


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Why Vote? To Protect Liberty From Obama's Court

By Rick Pearcey • October 13, 2012, 11:25 AM

"If Mr. Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone," writes Matt Barber.


Friday, July 27, 2012

Obama Abortion Pill Mandate Halted in Federal Court

By Rick Pearcey • July 27, 2012, 07:27 PM

This is from a press statement released today by the Alliance Defending Freedom:

A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court. The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business. The mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”


Monday, July 2, 2012

Cain: All in to Take Down Obamacare

By Rick Pearcey • July 2, 2012, 08:32 AM

Herman Cain at WND:

I was as disappointed as anyone else by the Obamacare ruling, and I remain deeply troubled by Chief Justice Roberts’ assertion that the federal government has the power to do virtually anything, so long as it calls it a tax.

But this is the hand we’ve been dealt, and the question now is how well can we play it? When you get over the punch in the gut and the feeling of betrayal, you should recognize that it’s a hand we could play all the way to a pretty big win.


Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Court: TSA, Not Passengers, Deserves Privacy

By Rick Pearcey • April 11, 2012, 08:03 AM

Bob Unruh reports:

A federal appeals court has rejected claims by passengers and pilots that the TSA invaded their privacy and violated their rights by demanding pat-down inspections or full-body scans.

In fact, the ruling reported today by the Rutherford Institute affirms a district court ruling from Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr., who cited a “secret” order from the TSA as the reason he rejected the cases.

The government, insisting that the “secret” order contains “sensitive security information,” has refused to make public the document outlining the procedures, according to John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Day 2: Supreme Court Will Likely Strike Down Obamacare, 5-4

By Rick Pearcey • March 28, 2012, 08:24 AM

Ken Klukowski writes at Big Government:

On Day Two, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that Obamacare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

With those words, the individual mandate -- the centerpiece of Obamacare -- is likely doomed.


Thursday, April 14, 2011

Appeals Court Adoption Victory Over Homosex Power Agenda

By Rick Pearcey • April 14, 2011, 11:27 AM

"An appeals court has ruled against two homosexual men who were attempting to force the state of Louisiana to change the birth certificate of the child they adopted to list two 'fathers'," reports LifeSiteNews.

The two males, "hailing from New York, had adopted a child born in Louisiana in 2006 and both wanted to be listed as the child’s father; they filed suit against Louisiana State Registrar Darlene W. Smith when the latter said it wasn’t possible."


Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Court Approved: "Be Happy, Not Gay" T-Shirts

By Rick Pearcey • March 2, 2011, 04:56 PM

Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal:

Writing for a three-judge panel, Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner on Tuesday ruled that a group of public high-school students had the right to wear “Be Happy, Not Gay” t-shirts on school grounds. Click here for the Chicago Sun-Times story; here for the opinion, which was joined by judges Michael Kanne and Ilana Rovner.


Saturday, January 29, 2011

Firefighters Victorious Against Homosexual Agenda

By Rick Pearcey • January 29, 2011, 01:06 PM

"Four California firefighters forced to participate in a 'gay' pride parade in July 2007 are victorious after the California Supreme Court this week refused to hear the city’s petition to review an appellate court decision last year," reports LifeSiteNew.com.

"The four men, led by Fire Capt. John Ghiotto of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, filed the suit against the city of San Diego for sexual harassment a month after a battalion chief directly ordered them to ride a fire engine in a lewd parade through the city streets. The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd," says LifeSiteNews.

Bravo to these firefighters for standing against a statist agenda that contradicts America's God-given and Creator-based unalienable rights, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

The Creator who gives these rights also provides liberating and healthy norms for family life, marriage, and human sexuality, all of which are under aggressive assault by homosexual extremists at war with the defining and enduring American -- and human -- mainstream.

Free-thinking people look forward to the day when an American president and the homosexual axis cease and desist from discriminating against those who, like the Founders of this exceptional nation, respect the emancipatory norms for human society available to any seeking individual and to any society willing to take verifiable information from the Creator with the seriousness -- and joy -- that it deserves.

Related
Coulter on Faggot Easy to Defend: Surprising Help From Secular America


Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Court Blocks "We the People" on Anti-Sharia Law

By Rick Pearcey • November 10, 2010, 10:59 AM

"In yet another indication of the increasing alienation of the political elites from the popular will, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange on Monday granted a temporary restraining order blocking Oklahoma’s brand-new anti-Sharia law," writes Robert Spencer at Frontpagemag.com.

"Seventy percent of Oklahomans voted for the measure, but who cares?" Spencer asks. "The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argued that the measure was 'anti-Islam,' and that was enough to prevail in today’s multiculturalist environment.

"As Abraham Lincoln put it long ago, 'The people . . . have ceased to be their own rulers'."

Here is the webpage for Oklahoma Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange.

What's your view on this? "Nauseating, but no surprise," says columnist and attorney Debbie Schlussel.


Friday, October 1, 2010

Court Rejects Atheist Lawsuit Against National Motto at Capitol Visitor Center

By Rick Pearcey • October 1, 2010, 09:09 AM

"A federal court judge in Madison, Wis., has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of engravings of the National Motto -- "In God We Trust" -- and the Pledge of Allegiance at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, D.C.," reports Pete Winn at CNSNews.com.


Monday, August 9, 2010

Fact-Challenged Homosex "Marriage" Judge: Child Has Neither Need Nor Right to Mother

By Rick Pearcey • August 9, 2010, 09:50 AM

And Kids Don't Need Fathers, Either, Don't You Know: That's the politically correct wisdom of the moment, according to federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, "who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," writes Terry Jeffrey, editor in chief of CNSNews.com.


Friday, August 6, 2010

Federal Judge Declares Most Americans Bunch of Bigots

By Rick Pearcey • August 6, 2010, 07:34 AM

Why? Because we agree, with the Creator, who is the defining mainstream and center of gravity for American freedom (see the Declaration of Independence), that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Please note, federal judge Vaughn Walker is an out and out homosexual. And now this extremist has imposed his private feelings upon the rest of America. In addition, please note that his opinon entails the conclusion that the verifiable Creator, who is a public figure, is also a bigot.

There is another possibility, however, and that is this San Franciso judge is a fool who says in his heart that when it comes to public policy the Creator does not exist. 

Americans who respect the Creator will resist the anti-marriage rulings of imperious judges.

And Americans who respect the "blessings of liberty" that arise when we take seriously information from the Creator will resist the anti-family rulings of hegemonic homosexuals. 

Human beings are magnificent beings created to live in community with God and man; to resist evil, death, and decay; and to welcome life, health, and wholeness.  

This is good news for any who embrace reason, fact, love, and verifiable information from our Creator. It is not so good news for others.

Related
Faggot Easy to Defend -- Surprising Help From Secular America
Rosie O'Donnell's Oppressive Coat


Saturday, July 3, 2010

Elena Kagan Morally Blind?

By Rick Pearcey • July 3, 2010, 08:20 AM

James Lewis writes at American Thinker:

Elena Kagan has now admitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that as a Clinton lawyer in 1997, she fraudulently revised an official medical opinion by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The medical society was going to publicly reveal that "its panel of experts found no circumstances in which the (partial birth abortion) procedure was the only option for saving the life of a woman."

In a secret memo, she wrote that "This, of course, would be a disaster[.]"

Kagan therefore secretly revised the language so the final statement in 1997 claimed that the partial-birth abortion "may be the best and most appropriate procedure in particular circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

"This was a pernicious life," Lewis concludes. "The medical panel originally said that was false. Kagan substituted her own judgment for a medical consensus." 


Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Atheist Goes Back to Court

By Rick Pearcey • June 15, 2010, 11:21 PM

Activist atheist Michael Newdow wants a case re-heard as he seeks to remove "So Help Me God" from oaths of office administered to U.S. presidents. 

Nothing in the Constitution, however, including the First Amendment, supports his private views, but Newdow seeks to use the courts as an instrument of oppression to impose them anyway.

Now at this point, let me say that, as a free-thinker, if I thought atheism answered the basic philosophic questions of life in ways that are logically consistent, empirically verifiable, and existentially livable, I too would embrace atheism. But clarity of thought rooted in the real world has not allowed such a conclusion.

The point of the Constitution, in contrast to certain secular myths, is to set up a system of government that protects the liberty embraced in the Declaration of Independence. It emphasizes a freedom that rests squarely upon the concept of a Creator who is the source of "unalienable rights" and the giver of the "blessings of liberty."

Clearly, the Creator is at the heart of the defining mainstream definition of American polity. Equally clearly, deviations from that mainstream are deviations into extremism, measured in extremity by the distance one departs from what truly is the heart of the enduring American mainstream.

Well, you ask, what about the "separation of chruch and state"? OK, what about it? It seems to me that any discussion of the so-called "separation of church and state" that wishes to deal with facts and not with liberal fantasy should begin with locating that phrase in the Constitution or Declaration. But this cannot be done because the phrase is not in there.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'," famously states the data given in that book of verifiable information we have from the Creator. The point is not that the fool is unintelligent but that he is uttering something entirely alien to who he is and to what this cosmos as a creation is.  

And so an educated man can utter foolisheness not just in his heart but also publicly in court. Before Newdow goes back into hallowed chambers whose ultimate authority rests upon divine law (even if some judges work in ignorance of this), it may serve him well to go back first to the Declaration and Constitution. Perhaps it's time to question the liberal propaganda lesson and start thinking freely for oneself. Even if it's the humane, and godly, thing to do.


Friday, May 28, 2010

Kagan Moved Harvard Away From Requiring Students to Study Constitutional Law, Say Critics

By Rick Pearcey • May 28, 2010, 08:11 AM

Peter Winn reports at CNSNews.com:

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, is best known for moving Harvard Law School away from the 100-year old "case-law method" of legal study.
 
But in the process, critics say, she moved the nation’s premier law school away from requiring the study of constitutional law towards the study of the laws of foreign nations and international law.


Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Kagan Wants to Impose Her Values on Your Speech

By Rick Pearcey • May 19, 2010, 07:31 AM

"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has expended a great deal of intellectual energy searching for a rationalization that would preserve freedom of speech for viewpoints she likes while imposing government controls on speech she does not like," writes editor and columnist Terry Jeffrey.


Monday, May 10, 2010

Kagan Thesis Lamented Decline of Socialism

By Rick Pearcey • May 10, 2010, 07:32 PM

"In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, lamented the decline of socialism in the country as 'sad' for those who still hope to 'change America'," reports Aaron Klein at WorldNetDaily.  

"Titled 'To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,' Kagan opined that infighting caused the decline of the early socialist movement. She asked why the 'greatness' of socialism was not reemerging as a major political force."

Grounds to Reject Elena Kagan Nomination to Supreme Court

By Rick Pearcey • May 10, 2010, 02:13 PM

Under the category of nice but not germane regarding Obama's pick for the High Court comes this from Mark Sherman at AP: "Solicitor General Elena Kagan would be the first person in 38 years to join the Supreme Court without first serving as a judge. She's had a year as perhaps the next best thing."

OK. But let us also be aware of a set of basic questions that should lay a baseline for deciding whether Kagan is qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Questions such as this: Does Kagan stand in the enduring definitional mainstream of American thought and practice? Or is she outside of the mainstream that really matters?

That is, does she affirm the Constitution and the Declaration, both as written and not as merely "living" documents that can be essentially rewritten by creatures of the federal government as they see fit and as opinion polls or gun barrels seem to allow?

And does she affirm, along with the Founders, the centrality of the Declaration's Creator who is the basis of unalienable rights and the giver of the "blessings of liberty"?

And does she affirm the federal government as a limited enterprise authorized by "We the People" under God and limited in its authority to the precise wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

If Kagan affirms in thought and practice these basics, then she operates philosophically within the liberating mainstream of the enduring meaning of the American ideal.

If she does not, then she is an individual outside of the American mainstream.

And to the degree that she is outside of that enduring mainstream, she would to that degree be an open door to (or advocate of) extremism against freedom and the rule of law rooted ultimately in the existence and character of the Creator from whom human beings receive their freedoms, responsibilities, and unalienable rights.

Kagan's life story, personal character, judicial temperament, and professional background matter much.

But their importance pales in comparison to basic questions regarding whether she understands and accepts the enduring American mainstream and its Founding rules for freedom. Or whether she is a kind of Obama court crony, a "judicial community organizer" estranged from that mainstream and yet another extremist move away from freedom and toward its opposite. 

If the evidence shows Elena Kagan is a radical outside of the enduring American mainstream, she should not be confirmed, for no one who rejects the rules of freedom should sit on the High Court, whose purpose is to protect freedom under the rule of constitutional law.

Barack Obama's selection of Elena Kagan is a strategic and teachable moment in U.S. history. After she is confirmed -- or not -- Americans will have moved either a step toward or further away from freedom and dignity under God.

It's hard to have a "shining city on a hill" when courts in the city are dark to liberty.


Friday, April 16, 2010

Court Rules Day of Prayer Unconstitutional

By Rick Pearcey • April 16, 2010, 07:46 AM

"A federal district court in Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, a decision that has angered a constitutional law firm that filed an amicus brief defending the National Day of Prayer," reports Melanie Hunter-Omar at CNSNews.

It is important to recognize that the defining mainstream of America  -- as set forth by the Declaration and Constitution -- is that of freedom under God, not restrictions under decisions handed down by secularized courts that have lost their way.

American freedom is not protected only by the Declaration and Constitution but also by "We the People." And when courts or other expressions of governing power have estranged themselves from the Vision-for-Freedom that defines American (and human) exceptionalism, it is up to "We the People," on the basis of unalienable rights and the Creator-given blessings of liberty, to offer the appropriate and necessary correction.

This ruling is an example of a by-definition extremist federal court that has reached a decision in the oppressive secular mainstream but not in the liberating American mainstream. That's why courts like this, decisions like this, and organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which filed the case) must be resisted and overcome if America is to repeal tryanny and replace it with freedom.

Update: Don't miss this report from CNSNews, titled "Legal Experts Blast Judge's Decision: If National Day of Prayer Is Unconstitutional, the Constitution Is Unconstitutional."