Courts and Legal Matters
UPDATE: Apparently, like most child molesters, Polanski has had sex with a few other underage girls. Check out this story from BigHollywood:
OK Whoopie, defend him now!
Roman Polanski, an Academy Award winning film director, has been arrested in Switzerland and is being held for extradition to the US for raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in 1977. Many people are questioning the decision to have him arrested and extradited for trial, and his victim, Samantha Geimer, has apparently stated she has forgiven him and does not want to be involved in a trial. The fact that there is even a debate about this indicates that our society has forgotten the concept of Justice and has no shame; we call good evil and evil good. Polanski should be brought to justice.
Now I was not going to write about this because I long ago realized that Hollywood types, athletes, politicians and other rich people, have a different worldview and play by different rules, for the most part. There are of course some good people in those fields who are honorable, but the culture of the rich and famous, by and large, is pretty decadent. Polanski is exhibit 1. But yesterday I was listening to Sean Hannity and heard people calling in to defend Polanski and explain to the incredulous Hannity, why they thought Polanski should NOT be prosecuted. I, like Sean, was totally enraged and dumbfounded at what I heard. I decided that I must write about this case.
First, the case itself. In 1977 Polanski arranged for a private photoshoot with the 13 yr old girl through the girl’s mother, allegedly for Vogue magazine. Problem #1 is you left your 13 yr old girl with a 44 yr old man alone, and he is a Hollywood type. Bad parenting.
Polanski convinced the girl to take off her top for some photos then convinced her to get naked and into a jacuzzi for some more shots. Then he stripped and joined her in the jacuzzi. At some point in the process she said, “No!” and at some point he gave her some drugs and liquor to make her more compliant. Polanski had sexual intercourse and anal intercourse with the young girl.
He was arrested a couple of weeks later, placed in a psych ward for evaluation, and charged with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He made a plea deal but, when he found out he would still likely do prison time, he fled the country.
In one of the articles I have linked to below, Polanski boasted of the night’s events and stated that every guy would want to do a young girl.
What are the stated reasons why Polanski should not be brought back for trial/jail?
First of all, many are saying that “It happened so long ago”. The assumption is this excuse is that time has eliminated guilt or that a person’s later accomplishments in life have atoned for his criminal deeds in his younger years. This type of an excuse is a typically American, post-modern excuse, that is part of our a-historical mindset. Americans do not much like history, are ready to forget about yesterday because today and tomorrow are all that matter. Just like hitting a delete button on the computer, whatever we don’t like about the past we can choose to forget. I have noticed, with joy, that the Israelis are still hunting and finding Nazi’s who ran the death camps in Germany in the 1940’s. The demands of Justice do not just disappear with the years, while the guilty still live.
A second excuse I have heard is, “Well he is an old man now.” This is related to the first excuse but seeks to give sympathy for the old Polanski and makes the perpetrator the victim. This is somehow saying that old people should not be held accountable for their past actions. There is an assumption that old people should not have to suffer for the wrongs they have done. Older people can still do incredibly wicked things because they remain sinners. Simply being old does not atone for past wrongs. This kind of logic would mean that those murderers who received a life sentence as a young person should automatically be released from prison at some certain age, just because they are old.
A Third excuse I have heard is that “he has suffered enough already”. This assumes that he feels guilt, and, from his statements in the article below, it appears that he DOES NOT think what he did was wrong. This is common with rapists and CHILD MOLESTERS. They think their victim enjoyed it or had it coming. He was doing the little girl a favor. After all, it was just sex. But again, people who think that “he has suffered enough already” are assuming that any guilt feelings he may have had, any sleepless nights he may have experienced, have atoned for or meted out the justice that he deserved. Again, this makes the perpetrator the victim.
The fourth excuse given is that the woman has now forgiven him and does not want to be a part of the trial as it will dredge up bad memories. This excuse basically says, “Hey, the girl has suffered, but she has forgiven Polanski, so there is no need for the justice system to get involved, it would just cause her more pain.” This lame excuse fails to understand that victims have a certain psychology as a result of the crime. They frequently just want the pain to go away. This personalizes justice in a very subjective manner and fails to give out real justice. JUSTICE IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE VICTIMS! Justice is for SOCIETY as well as the VICTIM. It is about Law and Order and the guilt of a society. Yes, going through a trial would be rough on the victim, but very often in life the best things require temporary discomfort. Justice will, over the long haul, be the best course for both the victim and society.
Incredibly, the fifth excuse I heard yesterday was from a guy who said that in that day and time, the 1970’s, something like a 44 yr old man raping a 13 yr old girl was not unusual and should not be judged by today’s standards; that was back in the era of free love, sex, drugs and rock and roll. I wanted to climb through my truck’s radio and choke him on the spot. He claimed to have two teenage daughters and said that if something like that happened to his daughters, he would wait a couple of weeks to see what they thought about it before he took any action. This guy has no conscience and should not be trusted with children. I graduated from High School the year of the Polanski crime, and I can tell you that the raping of 13 yr old girls by 44 yr old men was not normal and it was unusual. If anything, in that day it was considered to be worse of a crime than it is today. The reaction then was in all likelihood worse than now. I do not think all of these excuses would have been offered 30 yrs ago. The doufus who wanted to wait for a couple of weeks to see how his daughter would respond…if I had a daughter and somebody did that to her, I would be having a difficult time restraining myself from hunting the perp down and offing him.
Now let me analyze these excuses. What are the real excuses?
Obviously many normal people have offered these excuses for Polanski, but most of Hollywood seems to be coming to his defense too. On the TV show The View the other day, Whoopi Goldberg defended Polanski by saying, “It wasn’t Rape rape.”
No Whoopi, it was child molestation, which is worse than rape. Once again we are seeing WOMEN defending rapists like they did back when Bill Clinton was the President. What this shows is that there is something liberal women value more than justice for rapists and their victims- that would be liberal ideology.
The real reason the Libtards of Hollywood are defending Polanski is that he is one of them, and libtards circle the wagons and defend their own NO MATTER WHAT THE OFFENSE. That is why the despicable Bill Clinton was defended and that is why Obamasky is being covered up and defended. For the Hollywood Demoncrat Libtards, rules do not apply.
I guarantee you that if Polanski was a conservative film maker who was an strident anti-communist, who promoted family values and voted Republican, even if he was a famous film producer the Libtard Left would not cover for him, they would call for him to go to prison.
Compare and contrast how Republicans treat their screwed up politicians who do horrible things with how the Libtard Demoncrats treat theirs. Like rugby players we eat our own, the Dems protect theirs. Conservatives have standards and if you break the standards you are off the team. Dems have no standards, none, zero, zip, nada, nyet.
The bottom line with the Hollywood Left when it comes to Polanski is that he is one of THEM, and therefore he cannot have done anything bad and he does not deserve jail. It is an ideology and class view. It is not about JUSTICE.
America is dying. Because we have forsaken the God of our fathers, we turned away from the Bible, we have lost our moral compass and our virtue. We no longer know right from wrong. We celebrate evil and prosecute good.
I applaud the LA DA for the effort to bring this evil man to justice. But will it really happen? Will justice be served? I guess we will have another celebrity trial soon. Maybe, he will go to be a cellmate with Phil Spectre or OJ Simpson.
Breaking News! The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has overturned Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, also candidate for the soon to be vacant seat on the SCOTUS, in the Ricci case out of New Haven, CT involving the white fire-fighters who were discriminated against.
This complicated case was brought by the white firefighters who had scored the highest scores on the exam given for a promotion by the Fire Department. Because only 2 Hispanics and no Blacks scored high enough for the promotion, the city voided the exam due to fears of being sued. The broader issue of racial discrimination against ethnic minorities and the other issues of racial quotas or affirmative action and reverse discrimination are also involved.
I think that there was a time in this country when affirmative action and racial quotas may have been helpful. But those kinds of laws are inherently dangerous because they too are racist. Our civil service and private industries should be meritocracies. If black or hispanic firefighters had scored well enough on the exams to get the promotions, and then were denied because of race, that would have been a legitimate problem.
What does this mean for Sonia Sotomayor’s chances of getting on the SCOTUS? I think it helps the case of the Republicrats who can point to her excessively large number of cases that have been overturned by the SCOTUS as being hard evidence that she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I believe that it also points out that, along with the things she has said about hispanics and whites, that she may have some racist views that should disqualify her from the top Court position. Her membership in La Raza alone ought to do that.
All in all, this looks like a good call by the Supreme Court and another black eye for Obamasky.
The National Religious Broadcasters have given a warning that HR 1913, a federal Hate Crimes bill that will help prosecute crimes against homosexuals, will possibly endanger the first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion by religious broadcasters, evangelists and pastors. When you look at how the courts have been interpreting law in recent years it is very conceivable that a pastor or evangelist could be charged with a hate crime for preaching against homosexuality or even simply upholding the biblical view of marriage. The broadcaster, radio station or network could then also conceivably be charged. And of course they could all be sued as well.
Here is the story from The Christian Post:\
This law easily passed the House a couple of weeks ago and is now in the Senate. The Demoncrats have total control and should easily pass this bill and the President will eagerly sign it. The ramifications are chilling.
Over at WorldNetDaily they are calling it the Pedophile Protection Act:
The reason they are calling the Pedophile Protection Act is that the law not only gives special protection to homosexuals, but to all manner of perversions under the guise of “alternate lifestyles” and “orientations”. Rep. Louis Gohmert of TX mentions that one fundamental problem with this bill is that it is written about an almost non-existent problem because there are so few crimes that meet this description. Therefore, is the law merely an emotional crowd pleaser to satisfy the homosexual lobby? Or is the law really about something else…say, giving legal grounds for lawsuits and prosecuting Christians and other conservatives who speak out against perversion?
With the wording of the Bill, the loophole is the use of the term gender identification and orientation. In the medical community now that can describe those who have an orientation toward sex with children, with animals, the dead, etc.
Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent series on the problems of choosing Supreme Court Justices based upon whether they had empathy for certain groups:
The bottom line is that hate crimes legislation and justices who have empathy for certain groups make some people more equal than others. It will lead to persecution of the Church in America. The question for the Church is this: will we compromise the message of the Word of God, the Gospel, or will we continue to proclaim the truth and be willing to go to prison of for it?
Yesterday, May 7, 2009, was the National Day of Prayer, and it was fraught with more controversy than recent Day’s of Prayer. At issue was whether or not President Obama would choose to participate, or even issue a proclamation. In following the stories it looked obvious to me that Obama did not want anything to do with the annual observance (since 1952), but in the end, agreed to issue a proclamation, but not to attend any of the events. This was yet another calculated political maneuver, and I believe, probably another sign that his real religious beliefs likely lie closer to Mecca than he has let on.
It should be noted that Pres. BHO did attend and speak at the National Prayer Breakfast back in Feb. Why attend that observance and not the larger event of the National Day of Prayer? The National Day of Prayer was led by Shirley Dobson, wife of Dr. James Dobson, one of the most influential voices in evangelical conservatism for over thirty years. Dr. Dobson has been hugely critical of Pres. Obama. Clearly then, Obama did not want to associate himself with his political enemies which would upset his base- homosexuals, atheists, etc. See the below article for his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast:
Here is a brief history of the National Prayer Breakfast:
In the above story you will notice some of the speakers at the National Prayer Breakfast have included leaders from Muslim and Hindu States, thus it is a muslim friendly event, whereas the National Day of Prayer seems to include more Christians and Jews although many of th ePresidential proclamations include all religions. This is a significant difference that supports my thesis above that Obama’s spiritual loyalties lay closer to Mecca than Nashville.
That all being said, I must, in all fairness, criticize Pres. George W. Bush along the same lines. Evangelicals welcomed him as one of their own, but, over time, I observed that his personal theology was seriously compromised. His choice to include muslims in various religious funcitons such as the 9/11 memorial service, and his actually going inside a mosque, and his various remarks about islam being a religion of peace and basically assuming that we all worship the same God….sorry, but that kind of insidious compromise disgusts me and shows that you are not an evangelical. That is not to say that I think the man is not a Christian. I saw a lot of signs that he is what he claims to be, a Christian, unlike the current usurper in the White House.
But here are the questions: Should there be a National Day of Prayer in America which is now so multicultural, so secular and so divided? Are we a Christian nation? Does National Day of Prayer compromise our doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’? Does it compromise any truths of Scripture?
Here are some links to the history of the National Day of Prayer:
But, there are some theological difficulties with such events besides the well known legal difficulties. Let me begin my relating a persona story of an event where I was invited to give the public invocation, yet declined due to certain theological difficulties. After 9/11 the company where I was working at the time held a company wide meeting where the CEO, a committed Evangelical Christian, was going to share his thoughts on the tragedy and share a brief testimony (he was going to tell how he came to God). I had previously, on a few occasions led in prayer at some company events so I was asked to pray before the gathering which would likely have about 400 people in attendance.
I declined this opportunity because there had been one restriction placed on me: do not pray in Jesus’ name. Just pray to God, but leave out the name of Jesus. The reason given was that because it was a company wide meeting, not quite mandatory though, and people of other faiths would be present, they wanted it toned down. I politely turned down the request. I could not compromise my convictions in this regard.
I believe I could participate in a prayer event with Catholics, and even Jews, if I was allowed to pray in Jesus’ name. While I believe the God that the Jews worship is the same God who I worship, I do not believe the Jews have a right relationship with that God because the only way to have a right relationship with God is through God’s Son, Jesus Christ.
The larger problem comes with attempting to include muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. These religions do not worship the same God I do, they worship demons. There is no way that I could participate in any kind of a joint religious venture with them.
An even more complex problem arises with Mormons. They also worship a demon, in that the false god they have constructed is in no way related to the God who is, even though they use the Bible. Yet, the Mormon religion in its surface features is closer to Christianity than any of the other world religions. Frankly, I just don’t know what to do with them.
Now enter the National Day of Prayer. Is it pleasing to God for a nation, our America, to set aside a day of prayer when you realize that many who are participating are unbelievers, Jews, Mormons, muslims, Hindus, etc.? Or, are the false prayers of idolaters adding insult to injury? Furthermore, when you understand what some Baptists think about the dangers of a Civil Religion, where people assume they are ‘saved’ because they are Americans and are generally religious, then does something like the National Day of Prayer actually confirm them in their sins?
These are some of the complicating factors involved. Would I want to attend a National Day of Prayer with President Obama leading it? NO!
But is the whole effort a good thing? Or are the atheists right on this one?
Although there is much evidence for staying away from such events, I am going to side with the National Day of Prayer because I believe that some symbolism, even though it may be attended by much hypocrisy, is important and pleasing to God. I believe this principle is embedded in the sacrificial system God established through Moses. The sacrifice on the DAy of Atonement was for all Israel, but actually saved no one. It was a symbolic sacrifice for the nation that did look forward to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. There were plenty of Israelites who trusted in God with great faith, and there were no doubt many who had no faith, yet were under the general blessing of the annual sacrifice by the priest on the Day of Atonement.
I believe there is a need for such religious events and symbolism in our country, that such things do seek the blessings of the God who is, even though many, perhaps even most of Americans, are not genuinely saved by the blood of Jesus. I believe that the ‘radical separationsists’ who seek to remove all religious observances and symbols from our national scene are dead wrong and are harming our country.
I believe that America is still a ‘Christian Nation’ in that our religion is more Christian than any other, and our history is clearly mostly Christian, and our laws and culture are broadly Judeo-Christian in origins. Our founding fathers and documents are clearly from a judeo-christian background. Therefore, having a largely Christian national day of prayer is a good thing, as is having the 10 Commandments posted in our schools and courtrooms- despite what our courts have mis-ruled.
President Obama’s being fathered by a muslim man, adopted and raised by another muslim man, attending muslim school in Indonesia, his illegal travels in Pakistan as a young man, and his clear preference for arabs and muslims over Israel indicate to me that his faith is probably some kind of amalgamation between the radical black liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright and standard islam. It will be interesting to see if Obama copies George Bush by going into a mosque and even more interesting to see if he worships as a muslim again.
Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, is going to unravel soon. Within a decade, probably sooner. On several issues. Free Speech will be tested by the Obama administration with Talk Radio like it has already suffered under the Bush administration and the McCain-Feingold law that attacked Free Political Speech and was upheld by SCOTUS. The 2nd Amendment will be attacked by the Obamasky government soon, using all of the recent mass shootings and the civil war in Mexico as a pretext and the Clinton era Brady Bill as background. The Free Exercise of Religion clause in the first amendment will be attacked from two opposing directions: 1) Gay marriage and hate speech codes that will be used to force churches and religious institutions to accept gays and 2) The huge influx of muslims will force the government to either cave in and accept sharia law, thus allowing child marriages, clitorectomies, honor killings, and polygamy, -OR- the government will have to seriously modify the use of the “free exercise” clause to either exclude MANY islamic practices considered vital to their religion (controlling their women through clitorectomies, regular beatings, honor killings and polygamy) or outlaw islam entirely. It is the impact of islam upon our 1 st amendment that I want to address today.
When the Constitution was being considered, the greatest opposition to it was its lack of a Bill of Rights. Some states just were not going to ratify it without a Bill of Rights. Madison and others then wrote out the a Bill of Rights and, after some were abandoned and others modified, the first 10 amendments were settled on and the Constitution was approved with the understanding that after Congress and the President were seated they would pass the Bill of Rights.
At that time in America some states still had state supported churches and some persecution of dissidents was still carried out. State support for denominations gradually faded after the new nation was formed, and the Bill of Rights was gradually applied to the states by the courts. Through the years some legal cases brought to the SCOTUS expanded the range of the “Free exercise” clause of the first amendment, other cases have restricted or limited that clause. In recent decades it seems like more cases have resulted in more restrictions. The point is that the SCOTUS has a history of restricting the free exercise of religion.
Now to the issue at hand: with the vast influx of muslim immigrants, they are bringing in not just a different religion, but different morals and ways of defining what it means to be a woman, a man, marriage, education and law. In the islamic religion there can be no separation of church and state so they do not accept that part of the 1st amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. It simply does not apply to them in their eyes. This is why they MUST have Sharia Law wherever they are. This is why the courts in England and other European nations are allowing Sharia. What this does, however, is to set up two different law codes in the same geographic and national area. This then does away with the idea of equal protection under the law for all people and opens up a whole range of problems with the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
Read this story at Atlas Shrugs and you will understand what I mean:
If the courts intervene and take children away from muslim parents because they have made arranged marriages, or even given their 9 year olds to a man who has consumated the marriage, perfectly allowable in sharia law, can you imagine the outrage from the muslim community? What if a muslim mother is prosecuted for forcing her 13 year old daughter to have her clitoris removed without her daughter’s consent and without pain medication? Female genital mutilation is common within many muslim groups, especially from Africa. How will we apply family law to a muslim man who has 4 wives and children by each? Or what about the muslim family of 1 man, 4 wives who need government assistance? But all of these things are under the free exercise clause and are essential for the muslim faith.
What about the muslim schools that teach children to disrespect American law, mores, and tradition and that attempts to turn them into little jihadis? Does the government want to get inside a religious school and tell them what they can and cannot teach besides the 3 R’s?
Now, suppose the government does get involved through many lengthy court cases over the free exercise clause and islam, and after 4 to 8 years of Obama appointed judges get placed in the various courts including the SCOTUS, how will those cases be decided?
Let’s make it worse: if the SCOTUS restricts the 1 st amendment more, or just decides to allow sharia law, what will the same courts decide if it is a fundamentalist Christian church or church school that is teaching that marriage is just for 1 man and 1 woman? We have just offended the muslims, the gays, and the polygamists. Will the libtard courts side with the conservative Christians or say that we need to be more tolerant?
One major problem with libtards and their simplistic, atheistic understanding of religion, is that they think religious people can just have their private religious thoughts, meet together in their houses of worship and that’s the end of it. The libtards don’t understand that religions are fundamentally worldviews that must be acted upon. If you believe, you must also behave. You must not merely talk the talk, you must walk the walk. That is why Christians and Muslims both descry the immorality of Hollywood and America in general. That is why Christians say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for life and muslims say marriage is between 1 man and up to 4 women. Gays are excluded. (By the way, we Christians, while telling homosexuals their lifestyle is immoral and denying them the rights of marriage, we do not stone them or burn them alive. Muslims do that.)
The following statement I made when I was a 16 year old in Miss Entwhistle’s American History class: The first amendment should only be applied to the various Judeo-Christian denominations and churches. As soon as you allow Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims into America the 1st amendment stops working. It was written by Christians with a Christian understanding of the world. It cannot work with other worldviews.
We are hurtling towards a full blown Constitutional crisis soon over the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment free exercise clause, (and I haven’t even mentioned the Obama effort to REQUIRE doctors and hospitals with religious convictions against abortions to provide them), free speech with Talk Radio, 2nd amendment, and the ignored IX and X amendments which some states are now resurrecting. Add to this the passing of some ex-post-facto laws recently that affect corporations’ taxes and executive salaries, the owning of banks and car companies, and you can really see the constitution is going to be taking a beating for a long time.
What is the solution to the islamic problem? The European solution is to allow 2 separate law codes to exist side by side. That will last until there are more muslims than europeans. You don’t seriously think the muslims, when they take over, will extend the same tolerance level to us as we did to them? Good luck to you gays out there when that happens. You think Christians are intolerant of gays? We just want you to go back into the closets, the muslims will kill you.
The only solution, THE ONLY SOLUTION, is to seriously alter the 1st amendment and ban islam from the shores of America. And that ain’t gonna happen.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN? The muslim friendly Obamasky administration will not prosecute these gross violations of women’s and children’s rights and islam will continue to spread in Amerika. The courts will eventually allow Sharia Law, just as they are beginning to in Europe. Christians will be persecuted for being intolerant and for hate speech. And the atheistic secularists will rule.
Maybe, just maybe, in 25 years when Eurabia starts to eliminate the gays, Amerika will wake up. But more than likely, the West will just be led to their slaughter.
UPDATE: see my post for April 23, 2009 for an update:
The Persecution of the Church in America will begin over the issues of Homosexuality, Abortion and Taxes. Expect it to begin soon, probably in the Obama Presidency. By persecution I mean churches closed and pastors arrested. How can this be?
See the following article in Baptist Press:
As the homosexual agenda spreads and one state after another legalizes gay marriages, society and then the pols and the courts will continue to put pressure on the Church to treat homosexuals with equal rights. That will mean the Church’s hiring practices at schools, boards and hospitals will be challenged until we are forced to hire gays. Then churches will be forced to admit gays in for weddings, staff positions and membership. Government will command us to do what God commands us not to do. The pastors and churches that refuse to cooperate will be sued, fined, closed and jailed.
Hate speech codes will be invoked against preachers, evangelists and TV/Radio ministries for speaking out against homosex. Lawsuits will be filed, legeslatures will pass laws and judges will issue rulings. Church related orphanages will be required to adopt out to homosexual couples or face closing.This is already happening with some of the Catholic services.
Similarly with the issue of abortion. The Obamites will require religiously affiliated hospitals to perform abortions and if they are opposed they will be sued, shut down and prosecuted.
Obamasky has already presented a budget with a proposal to decrease the amount of charitable giving you can deduct from your income for tax purposes. This will obviously cause people to give less to charity as they have to “contribute” more to the taxman. As the budget woes continue, the Statists will look for more tax revenue and what better place than the Church? I would expect them to nibble away at the tax exempt status of various charites including churches but the real threat will be to those churches who go against the Gay Agenda. They will likely be taxed first.
God may be judging the Church and Amerika both in this situation.
Here is a great article about Religion and Politics in the Post-Christian Amerika:
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
President Obama has nominated the radical David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton has had at least two of his rulings overturned by the 7th Circuit, 1) In 2002 he ruled against a law requiring a woman to have counseling prior to an abortion and 2) In 2005 he ruled with the ACLU in forbidding ministers from praying, “In Christ’s name” while giving the invocation at the Illinois Legislature. This shows him to be a radical pro-abortion agent and an anti-Christ who has no understanding of the Founders’ view of the 1st Amendment. Let’s see…he supports killing innocent babies, has the spirit of the antichrist and is ignorant of the Founders views on prayer and the 1st Amendment…yup! He is an Obama pick!
Pray that the Senate Judicial Committee would have the wisdom and discernment to reject this radical antichrist. Pray that the Republicans on the Committee would be united in standing against this pro-death bigot who hates babies and Christians.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )