Law on Blog 



[ Links ]
Covenant Media Foundation

[ Blogs That I Read ]
Rabbi Saul
The Blog According to John
Aaron's Baseball Blog
Whilin' Away the Hours
Dr. G's Blog
Le Sabot Post-Moderne Societas Christiana
Just Mark
Contra Tyrannus
View from Peniel
Doug's Blog
40 Bicycles
The Whirlwind Musings of a Reformed Catholic

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." -- Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) --

Saturday, August 30, 2003

I also figured that I might as well add Mark Horne's other blog to the lists. He only hasn't updated Prebytermark since February. :) It's still worth reading, but I also read Just Mark, and have been for quite awhile.

It looks like Tim has finally entered the blogging world! I added his blog to the list of blogs that I read. You should also visit his website on Medieval Protestantism. He's got a lot of good stuff there, and I can only say that I've learned much from that site.

Welcome to the blogsphere, Tim :)

Friday, August 29, 2003


I was again purusing the newspapers. This time, I came across an opinion piece by Stephen Chapman of the the Chicago Tribune in The Orange County Register. The title was "Be careful what you ask for." The subheading is "If the Ten Commandments were the law, Alabama police would be busy." Yes, it's that kind of an article.


I'll probably write a letter to him and post it on this blog. It'll be over the next couple of days, if I do.

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Thou Shalt Seperate the Church from the State?

Well, that was the title of one of the captions of the Fish Wrap, er, The Los Angeles Times, today. 5 letter that basically seemed to say the same thing.

#1 by someone in Westlake Village

"Roy Moore is not above the law. As much as I believe in the Ten Commandments, Moore and his fanatics cannot be allowed to force their religious beliefs upon others."

This is the most interesting line of the short letter. No one is claiming that Chief Justice Moore is above the law. He and others believe that he is following the law of the land and the Constitution. It is their contention that the District Federal Courts have usurped the law; and indeed they have. There is nothng in the Constitution that prevents the State from acknowledging God as the source of their laws, and to place monuments to reflect that source. The 1st Ammendment says " Congress shall make no law," not the States. And for those who think they "got" me, yes, I will bite the bullet. This includes the freedom of speech and press; but every State has their own constitution that guarantees these same rights...some, such as the California COnstitution, go beyond the protections of the 1st Ammendment that prohibits Congress. For instance, no reporter can explicitly be forced to reveal his sources under the California Constitution. This is not necessarily so with other States' and Federal Constitutions.

Finally, I am sure he is sincere in his belief in the 10 Commandments, but the 9th Commandment says not to bear false witness. No one is forcing reigious beliefs upon others; The issue is whether the State can acknowledge God as the source of law. This continual red herring has to be stopped. The issue is never individual worship.

#2 A woman in Palm Desert writes, "I find it ironic that by "honoring" the Ten Commandments, so many folks in Alabama are breaking the one that refers to graven images [If they are explicitly worshipping the monument, or looking to it instead of the God that it reflects, then you are correct -M], as well as that other biblical admonition about public displays of piety [if they're being hypocritical and doing it just to be seen by others. Can you loo into their hearts? -M]

#3 A writer from Oxnard says that if 86% of Americans believe in God, then it's time for that 85% to tell the 14% to shut up. Despite some philosophical problems with that line of was still cute :)

#4 A writer from the People's Republic of Santa Monica says "The Holy Bible has no place in government buildings. It is completely irrelevant to the constitutional rights of Americans, none of whom are required to believe those relatively few (though popular) religions that subscribe to its theological declarations." Despite suffering from the same red herring fallacy as mentioned above, this line of thinking is perhaps the most dangerous. If I remember correctly, it was John Adams who said that the constitutional framwork of America can only survive in a Christian naiton. I'm not sure of the exact quote. If the Bible is irrelevant to the Constitution, then this nation is subjugated to the whim of men...and in fact, that is exactly what has happened since this country has forsaken its Christian heritage. Nine people now determine what the Constitution really means, and they will make up a line of reasoning to get the COnstitution to say what it wants (in spite of the 10th Ammendmnet that leaves those unnamed powers to the State and the People) Congress can, at a whim, tax and spend and force states to fund ungodly programs. The President can committ troops to fight in foreign let's see, it looks like a sounds like a war...but what's that inconvenient little thing about Congress declaring war? Oh, but the President is the Commander in Chief. Yes he is, but is it not more likely that he is Commander in Cheif during *wartime* so that the military is not encumbered by COngress when it does battle?

Yup...that's what happens, and if there is no God, then what are you going to do?

Kiss the Son, my leaders, lest he be angry and you perish in the way.


Now this is a very interesting article. The State of Arizona, it appears, will now be obligated to cover the cost of illegal immigrants. This just shows the folly that happens when the State takes over a job that should have been with the church. The Church, a mission of mercy, should be the first to help those who are in need, whether legal or illegal immigrants. This would most certainly be an evangelical tool; but when the church (or family) shies away from its duties, or when it backs away and becomes isolated from this country's culture, the State will happily intrude. However, usually, the State screws everything up; this shows part of it, given that Arizona citizens now have to pay for the health care (by force, through taxes) of illegal immigrants. Hey, they should be upset that they're being forced to pay for health care of legal citizens.

Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, unemployment---it's the failure of the family to provide, and if the family is financially unable to do so, then the failure lies with the Church. Instead of being proactive and interacting with the culture to unequivocally proclaim the Gospel through her mission of mercy, the CHurch instead has become reactive, and shied away from culture to the point where the CHurch has become irrelevant.

In one sermon, Dr. Bahnsen once commented on the abortion holocaust. Now, we should always speak out against the slaughter of innocent children, but how impotant has the Church become that allowed this situation in the first place. There are over one million abortions per year in the United States; how did the church become so impotent? Does the blame lie in premillennial dispensational eschatology? My friend and former pastor, Dr. Ken Gentry, Jr., once said in a couple sermons at my church that when he was a dispensationalist, a women was going door-to-door selling life insurance. He stated that he wasn't going to buy any because he didn't expect to be around: the Rapture was around the corner. WOuldn't that cause one not to care about the culture and society one lives in if one believed he was going to leave very soon via the Rapture?

Guess so, and it's sad. We reap what we so.

Friday, August 22, 2003


One thing I like to do is read the editorial pages of newspapers and letters to the editorial. Once in awhile, there are some good letters; but more often than not, the letters are just a bunch of irrational blah-blah-blah that is incoherent.

In today's edition of the Los Angeles Times, two letters struck me; both dealth with the current recall. The first letter, written by Brooke Illes of Lawndale, is apparantly a Gray Davis supporter. She writes, "What makes these people who support the recall think we have money for this nonsense?" Well, if Davis had kept spending in line with revenue increases, there would be money for "this nonsense." As it is though, revenue increased by 25% while Davis has been in office while spending has increased 40%. The real question brooke should be asking is what makes David think the State had the money for all that extra spending. However, I doubt she has really thought this through and is nothing more than a partisan politico who can see nothing wrong with Davis and everything wrong with the Republicans.

This can be seen in what she then writes: "Davis didn't ruin California; those money hungry Republicans did." Really? This is simply blatant revisionist history. Now, I am not thrilled with the Repblican Party, and in nearly every way, they are equally as bad, if not sometimes worse, than the Democrats. However, to say that the Republicans ruined California is simple loonacy. The Republicans hold no statewide offices, are in the vast minority in both houses of the Legislature, and would be driven to irrelevancy if not for the 2/3 requirement to pass budgets and increase taxes. When Davis was elected to office in 1998, Republicans only held one office: Secretary of State.

Furthermore, it was not the majority of the Republicans in the Legislature who voted for the budgets that caused this defecit. Nearly all the budgets were passed by dealing with the minimum number of Republicans needed. For instance, in 2002, the Democrats needed to peel off one Republican in the State Senate to have the budget passed, and they did. That person has since been elected out of office. That happened again with this year's budget. Furthermore, and this will come up, yes, the electricity deregulation bill was signed by Gov. Pete Wilson. However, it was authored by a Democrat (who happens to work for the Davis Administration now) and it was the Democrats who wanted a control that prevented utility companies from raising rates. Hence, when electricity prices started to skyrocket in 2000, the companies could not cover their losses by increasing rates. Instead, they had to bear the losses until finally, they had to declare bankruptcy.

Sorry, Brooke, but to say the Republicans ruined this state is simply absurd.

The second letter, written by Judy Graff Fisher of Burbank, is just as bad. She is against the recall; that's fine. Consider, though, her reasoning: "This recall is nullifying my (and any other voter's) November 2002 vote." No, again, that is not true. It is a legitimate, constitutional election that is initiated by the voters. It is a seperate election, and has nothing to do with "nullifying a vote." "The Florida 2000 general election fiasco was also engineered by Republican interests..." Really? From what I remember, the fiasco was engineered when Gore asked for a hand count in select counties (Volousia, and Palm Beach County, among others) It was Gore who initiaed the lawsuits, not Bush. It was a Democratic Florida Supreme Court which violated Florida's own election law by attempting to extend deadlines with absurd reasoning such as, "Well, let's say the deadline is one week later, but the person doesn't get started until a day or two before the deadline. Surely he will not be able to finish by the deadline." This is what one of the justices actually said during the oral arguments. I wonder if they would allow that reasonng to a lawyer when he misses a deadline for siling with that Court?

Finally, this is the ultimate howler of Judy's letter: "Every voter and politician (and every columnist) should be up in arms over any special interest's widespread attempt to overturn and nullify the results of legitimate elections." Really? So who really were those 1.6 million people who signed petitions to recall were simply political hacks? The fact that Davis has approval ratings that rival President Nixon's in 1974 has nothing to do with it? Furthermore, the recall is also a legitimate election. Read my blog from a few days earlier. It's in the Constitution; it wasn't made up. Considering that there have been 31 other attempts to recall Governors (including Governor Ronald Reagan), why is it that not only the recall of Davis has ever qualified for the ballot? Not only is he the first Governor to be subject to recall, he is the first statewide officer to be in a recall election. A howler indeed.

Well, that's enough for now. There are enough wackos in the Los Angeles basin that I should have more than enough materials for blogs in the future. :)


The United States Supreme Court in the early 1800s decided the case of Marbury vs. Madison. By nearly all accounts, this is one of the most importent and momentous decision in the history of the Court. As the Chief Justice noted, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." This mindset, along with the rest of the opinion, has in essence set the foundation for the lawlessness that now exists. No one doubts that the Court should rule on cases that arise under the Constitution; that is something that is explicitly granted, and that is something that the Court has done, in the past, with good success (for example, see the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, in which the term "commerce" is expounded). It is quite another, however, to give oneself the authority to rule acts of law passed by Congress unconstitutional. Even if the Judiciary Act did violate the constitution (and it did), this does not give the Court the right to overrule an act of Congress. The only people who can do that are the people who are parties to the compact at issue (i.e. the Constitution)---it is the States. By passing a Law that violated the Constitution, Congress did make a mistake. If Congress, however, is alerted to that mistake and then refuses to change course and correct that mistake, it then becomes lawless.

Chief Justice Marshall may have thought that he was doing good and enforcing the rule of law. Indeed, he was virtually stuck in a no-win situation in which, on the one hand, if the Court ruled in Marbury's favoer, the Jefferson Administration was certainly going to ignore the Court; on the other hand, to rule in favor of Madison would have given the appearance of fear---it was a plainly unconstitutional act, and to allow it to stand without comment would have given into lawlessness. Therefore, the third option was taken: the supremacy of the Supreme Court in checking acts of Congress. It was ingenious, but it was not a power the States had given the Court. So, in order to curtail one act of lawlessness, the Court used another lawlessness act.

What is the solution, then? If, as I am saying, the decision in Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided, then what would the remedy be. As I mentioned earlier, the ones who have the power to say what acts of Congress are unconstitutional are those who created the Congres...the States. If Congress continued in violation of the Constitution, then there are two remedies. The first is to correct the violation through the congressional process itself---pass a law rescinding it. If, however, the unconstitutional act continues, and survives, and is not nullified, then the second option for the States is to opt out of the Constitution. That is...the State secedes. Nothing in the Constitution forces the States to remain in the compact.

This is precisely what was happening during the events that led up to the War of 1861. It was no accident that the border states seceded after Lincoln called up the militias from those states to quell the "rebellions" in the South. The problem is, that is a power granted to Congress. Lincoln cannot call for war expenditures as he did---again, that is a power given to Congress. He cannot suspend the writ of habeus corpus---again, that is a power granted to Congress. Lincoln was a man of lawlessness. Lawlessness had prevailed in the Presidency to the point that the Constitution was routinely ignored. The Southern States, but especially the border states who would certainly have been outnumbered by the Northern States in Congress, were exercising their power to opt out of a compact.

Remember, what was created was a federal government. Federal---from fidere, which means to trust. The States granted the federal government, and the judiciary, and the Presidency, certain powers. The States were equal partners in the federal government, and they were never consider to be to the federal government. The Constitution was the trust that the States had because it defined what the government could and could not do, and given that some people were stillscared of an overreaching federal government, the 10th Ammendment was written to say that any powers not in the Constitution is reserved to the States or to the People. By 1861, the United States Government was out of control, and with the onset of what Lincoln called a rebellion (which in reality was the Southern States legally exercising their right to ddissolve their association with a compact), it became more apparant the the United States had become a lawless nation.

Lawlessness has prevailed; the Constitution as a standard died in 1865. It's still trodded out every so often as an historical document, but no one really gives it any credence anymore, unless it suits his purpose. Consider that since 1865, COngress has issued mandate after mandate after mandate upon the States. This was codified into the 14th Ammendment, which has effectively made the federal government the watchdog over the States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution has been stretchedand distorted to the point that it is no longer recognizable. Today, the Supremacy clause has been used not to officiate between contradictory State and Federal laws, but has instead been used to validate every federal mandate upon the States. The States are forced to fund, and follow federal directives for auto emissions, land regulation, environmental laws, employment discrimination, welfare, etc.

We live in a lawless country. The federal government does not abide by the Constitution (you paying your taxes with paper money?) and neither does the federal court system. The former has become a being with many tentacles that reach into every family's life, while the latter is an autonomous, unaccountable body that has no regard for the rule of law. They speak of the rule of law, they speak of adhering to the Constitution, but they are in reality nothing more than ideological machines, making the Constitution say whatever it is they want it to say. In essence, they have become like the Roman Catholic Church, but at least the courts haven't proclaimed infalibility (yet).

As Rev. Wilkins once said,"The War of 1861 did not end slavery; it merely expanded the plantation."

Thursday, August 21, 2003


God willing, I'll be there in January. The topic looks good, and if it's anything like Rev. Wilkins lecture at Christ Church in Moscow a few months ago, it should be just as good as 2002 and 2003.

Tuesday, August 19, 2003


The Daily Bird Cage Liner out here, also known as The Los Angeles Times, had an editorial on the controversy happening in Montgomery. Chief Justice Moore is defying a federal court order to remove a monument to the 10 Commandments that he placed in front of the Alabama Supreme Court.

In its effort to dondemn Chief Justice Moore, the Times in essence shows that it is indeed forcing it's own perverted 1st Commandment on the people. The editorial says, "Judeo-Christian beliefs about right and wrong have influenced laws, but the United States endures as a secular nation---people worship as they choose or not at all." This red herring is surprising, considering earlier in the editorial, it states, "Moore says he sees a Judeo Christian God 'as the source of law and liberty' and that's that." Simply put, yes, that is precisely the issue. Does the State of Alabama have the right to acknowledge whom she feels is the source of "law and liberty." To suddenly focus on individual worship or non-worship is simply a red herring. That's not the issue of the court at all, and to focus on that suddenly is simply to appeal to our emotions. "Why, yes of course. Who would disagree." Well, no one would---if that were the issue.

The editorial continues, "A court that embraces one religious view by allowing commandments in the courthouse or a Christmas creche in City Hall diminishes citizens with different beliefs." The self-contradictory nature of this quote should be obvious. If what the Times says is true, then the forbidding of any religious items would also diminish people with different beliefs. In fact, what the Time is actually advocating is an atheistic foundation for government, and if anyone has read the Times's editorials over the years, as I have, this is precisely what it believes.

The TImes may, and has in the past, responded that this is simply adhering to the 1st Ammendment, and that this is the view of the Founding Fathers. Even assuming the latter is the case, this does nothing to advance their case. If this is true, then the Founders would have stated it in the text. As it stands, though, it says "Congress shall make no law..." The Bill of RIghts did not apply to the States until the ratification of the 14th Ammendment and the Supreme Court decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Yet, even then, the Supreme Court 20-30 years later would affirm that the United States was founded on Christian presuppositions in the case, Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States. (Please note that although I am referencing Court cases, this does not mean I give them carte-blanche in all they say, as the title of this blog (I hope) attests.) A Consitutional appeal, therefore, seems baseless.

What does seem to be the case with Chief Justice Moore is that the courts are taking offense that the State of Alabama would dare acknowledge God as the source of law and liberty and not the federal government, or particularly, the Courts. By appealing to God, the Chief Justice is standing against the humanism and Enlightenment influences that have permeated the country because of the Church's impotence. In essence, man is not ultimate, and it bugs people that he would dare try to argue that about government. In the United States today, the federal court sysem has elevated itself to God-like status. Consider the omnipotence it posseses: the Courts can declare acts of Congress and States unconstitutional. Children for at least a couple generations have been taught that this is the way it is. However, the Constitution makes no reference to the Courts having the power to declare acts of Congress and laws of States unconstitutional. It was by fiat that this happened in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison. Today, though, it's all but assumed that the courts have always been given the power to do this.

So what we have now is the federal court's version of the 1st Commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.

Tuesday, August 12, 2003


With all the hoopla going on with the recall, I think we should get one argument out of the way. Democrats, and those against the recall, have stated that the recall was meant for officials who have committed some kind of crime or other misconduct while in office.

Let's get some things straight:

1. The implication was that the recall was meant only for criminal or orther misconduct while in office. This is simply not true. There already is a procedure to remove the Governor from office for misconduct. It's called impeachment, and that is for criminal conduct or malfeasance. To say that the recall is for criminal conduct or malfeasance means that the Governor in 1911 was particularly stupid. The sole argument against the recall is, "Hey, there's already a procedure of recall; it's called impechmanet and trial!"

2. The recall is not a coup, or something that was invented to thwart Davis. It is not a "do over" of an earlier election. It is a legitimate, legal, constitutional activity.

3. This is not democracy run amok: this is democracy in its true form. If there is a circus atmosphere, it's because of the full working out of a political theory, not because the people have chosen to exercise a legal right granted to them under the California Constitution

4. Although a recall can certainly be used against state officials when the Legislature refuses to act, there is nothing in the text to say that is the only reason, Indeed, if the Legislature does nothing to remove a criminal orcorrupt politician (some will argue that this is the case with Governor Davis right now), then the only recourse would be the recall. Here is the full text of the recall statute of the California Constitution. Tell me where the "Well, it's only for criminal conduct or malfeasance" language is.

P.S. As you read the following, remember that Gray Davis tried to sue the Secretary of State (the elections officer) to 1) Put his name on the list of recall candidates even though he's the subject of the recall, 2) Move the recall election to the March ballot, which would probably help his cause since it is a Presidential primary ballot also, and 3) wanted the Secretary of State to delay certification of the signatures to again insure a March election. Apparantly, Governor Davis cannot read, but fortunately, the California Supreme Court can. The justices nearly unanimously dismissed all his suits. (A couple of justices had questions regarding the low threshhold to run in the recall election (either $3500 and 65 validated signatures or 10,000 signatures, but a majority of the Court dismissed the case.)


SEC. 13. Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective


SEC. 14. (a) Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering
to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall.
Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable. Proponents have 160 days to
file signed petitions.
(b) A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by
electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the
office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1
percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to
recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of
Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must
equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office.
(c) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of
the signatures certified to that office.


SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.
(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the
date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the
election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled
election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction
in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters
eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at
least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall
(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer
is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives
a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate,
nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to
subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.


SEC. 16. The Legislature shall provide for circulation, filing, and
certification of petitions, nomination of candidates, and the recall


SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively.


SEC. 18. A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by
the State for the officer's recall election expenses legally and
personally incurred. Another recall may not be initiated against the
officer until six months after the election.


SEC. 19. The Legislature shall provide for recall of local
officers. This section does not affect counties and cities whose
charters provide for recall.


SEC. 20. Terms of elective offices provided for by this
Constitution, other than Members of the Legislature, commence on the
Monday after January 1 following election. The election shall be
held in the last even-numbered year before the term expires.

Sunday, August 10, 2003

I was reading this blog that referenced this story. I don't think future historians will have too much trouble deciphering what happened to Canada in the late 20th and early 21st century. Since I am a postmillennialist, historians in the way, way, way distant future will be able to give Canada (and the United States, for that matter) as a test case for what happens when Jesus Christ is not honored as Lord. When man is made the ultimate standard, all sorts of wacky things happen. The future historians will be shaking their heads in disbelief, wondering how a country could get so depraved. Then, they will remember what Jeremiah wrote about the heart being deceitful above all things. They will remember what God said after the flood about the heart of man. And they will thank God that, by his grace, the country that they live in has not fallen to the mistakes of the past, but has instead submitted itself to the Word of God, and submitted itself to the authority of King Jesus.

If you are not going to bow the knee to Jesus, then you will bow the knee to someone else. I do not know much about Canada's history, or its founding, but my friend has told me that there were some Christian foundations. They probably were not as extensive as the foundation to the United States, but they were there somewhat. If that is true, then that nation, much like the US, has slipped into covenental apostasy, and both countries are now reaping what they are sowing. According to the article, Canada has become a totalitarian state, and if the account the article gives is true, how can that be denied? People who have power don't like to give it up, and given the wickedness of man's heart, they can devise some pretty oppressive obstacles to their enemies so that they can keep power. You know it's true. What would have happened if the teacher were allowed to continue speaking? In the United States, it hasn't gotten quite gotten that far yet, but it is getting there. There still is a First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution along with articles in States' constitutions that guarantee free speech (interestingly, the freedom of speech clause does only apply to Congress, not the States), but given Abraham Lincoln's little war which was littered with unconsitutional acts, and the recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court to ignore the explicit wording of the State Constitution and clear the way to allow an illegal increase in taxes, it shows that constitutions are nothing but a sheet of paper with words written on them.

One could probably say that about the Bible. It is, after all, a book composed of pages with letters on them. However, unlike constitutions, which if made in an atheistic setting, they require faith in fallen men to ensure enforcement, the Bible is the word of God that will judge men according to what it says, and God will enforce it. Jesus was not kidding when he said that his words will judge men.

Do it! Rebel, O man. "The Charter of Rights trumps the Bible," a man says gleefully as he weds his same sex partner. Do you really think that God is cowed by your proclamation? Do you really think God is busy wondering how he'll adjust his will to submit to The Charter of Human Rights? HA!! It cracks him up. He is laughing at you, and not in humor, but in derision! Do you really think that God will allow a country that gives legal protection and legal blessings to acts that God finds abominable to survive? Do you, Woman, who goes into Planned Parenthood to murder her you really think that God will turn a blind eye to you, or to this country that has given legal protection to hundreds of thousands of murders per year?

If God did not spare Ninevah, a city that you, the United States and Canada, could give lessons to on how to be wicked since we've turned it into an art, what makes you think he will spare you?

Repent. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way.


Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies found and cornered the suspect in Deputy Sorensen's murder in a house near Palmdale. He was armed, and he admitted to killing the deputy. As the SWAT team stormed the house, a fire broke out and destroyed all the surrounding buildings. It is unknown if the suspect was inside, or if he escaped. Given the tight surroundings, the latter is very unlikely. In any event, it seems the ordeal is over. May Deputy Sorensen's family have closure, and May God bless them in what is surely a most trying time in their lives.

Friday, August 08, 2003

I updated some info for Deputy Sorensen, including a link to his bio at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. As of this time, his killer has not been apprehended. If anyone has seen this man, please call your local police or sheriff's department immediately or the Los Angeles County Sheriff's homicide investigators at the number listed on the poster. Since this is a murder case, LASD will certainly extradite from anywhere in the United States. Also, Canadian authorities will deport felons back to the United States for violations of immigration law should he flee there.

Again, I am not affiliated with LASD.

Wednesday, August 06, 2003


I've added Le Sabot Post Moderne to my list of blogs. The url has changed, so don't use the one I listed in the "Amok" post. I'll change that link....eventually. :)


Deputy Stephen D. Sorensen
Date of Birth: June 18, 1957
Appoitned: February, 1991
End of Watch: August 2, 2003 (murder)

If anyone saw anything strange on August 2 along Highway 138 between Palmdale and I-15, or if you have seen 52 year old Donald Kueck, please contact the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. homicide investigators at (323) 890-5500.

Note: I am in no way affiliated with the LASD; however, I do work for a police agency, so it does affect me a little bit.


Deputy David March
Date of Birth: March 29, 1969
Appointed: July 19, 1995
End of Watch: April 29, 2002 (murder)

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detectives know who killed Deputy March, but they can't get him because of an extradition treaty with Mexico that forbids the extradition of its citizens to the United States to answer for crimes in which the death penalty or, now due to a recent Mexican Supreme Court decision, life in prison is a possible punishment. Only the President can negotiate a treaty. Please pray that the killers of both deuties are caught, and that this horrific treaty is jettisonned, not simply for Dep. March, but for the other 150 victims in Los Angeles County alone whose murderers have fled to Mexico.

Monday, August 04, 2003


To my Canadian friend (and he knows who he is), happy birthday. In honor of this special day, I dedicate the following song to you:

Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you

Well, it's time to celebrate your birthday, it happens every year
We'll eat a lot of broccoli and drink a lot of beer
You should be good and happy that there's something you can eat
A million npeople every day are starving in the street

Your daddy's in the gutter with the wretched and the poor
Your mama's in the kitchen with a can of Cycle Four
There's garbage in the water
There's poison in the sky
I guess it won't be long before we're all gonna die

Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you

Well, what's the matter little friend, you think this party is the pits
Enjoy it while you can, we'll soon be blown to bits
The monkeys in the Pentagon are gonna cook our goose [yes, even Canada's :) --M]
Their finger's on the button, all they need it an excuse

It doesn't take a military genius to see
We'll all be crispy critters after World War III
There's nowhere you can run to, nowhere you can hide
When they drop the big one, we all get fried

(Come on boys and girls, sing along, ok?)

Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
wow! (background screaming, sound effect)

Well there's a punk in the alley and he's looking for a fight
There's an Arab on the corner buying everything in sight
There's a mother in the ghetto with another mouth to feed
Seems that everywhere you look today there's misery and greed

I guess you know the Earth is gonna crash into the sun
But that's no reason why we shouldn't have a little fun
So if you think it's scary, if it's more than you can take
Just blow out the candles and have a piece of cake

Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
Happy birthday to you

(Happy Birthday!)

And a pinch to grow an inch!

***lyrics by "Weird Al" Yankovic, from the album "Weird Al" Yankovic, copyright sometime in the 1980s, and a fellow Cal Poly alumnus. (No foolin'; He graduated in 1979...maybe 80)

Sunday, August 03, 2003


Well, I am a reconstructionist, but when I see other reconstructionists go amok like I've recently seen in some blogs, I have to wonder whether I should keep that label. Through Barb's blog, I found this blog, which referenced other blogs by people who are reconstructionists and paleo-conservatives. Most of it seems centered around this blog (warning: explicit material).

The people at Little geneva make me ashamed to be called a reconstructionist. It is truly sad to see overt racism by people who claim Christ. It can only be said that this is overt racism being spewed, and if anyone wants a response as to why racial discrimination and racism is Bibliclaly unjustified, I suggest he purchase this tape.

I might write a little more about this, but I think enough has been said on the Sabot blog. I know he's not lumping all reconstructionists when he says, "I'm curious, is this sort of thinking normal or prevalent in Theonomical circles?" Let's hope not, and with my acquaintances, it is not.


In case you haven't noticed, we here in California have done an unprecedent event: a statewide official, in this case, Governor Gray Davis, is the subject to a recall. 31 times recalls have been attempted against California Governors, including the popular George Dukmejian (sp) who served in the 80s. Never before has one ever qualified for a ballot, and on October 7th, 2003, the voters of California will go to the polls to see if Gov. Davis should be recalled, and if so, who should replace him.

Make no mistake; Gov. Davis, along with the entire State Legislature (although it is overwhelmingly the Democrats) should be recalled, and not just because of the budget. They refuse to bow the knee to Christ, and as such, perhaps this is his judgment upon this State: a $38 billion dollar deficit that will increase next year; spending frenzies by the lawmayers that entice illegal immigrants from Mexico, thereby putting an even bigger strain on California finances, thereby increasing costs to taxpayers.

The reason for this entry, though, is to chronicle how corrupt people who want keep power in their grasp will say anything to keep it. At one time, the Democratic Party, while still mistaken and egregiously wrong on many issues, were at least principled people who would at least try to advance arguments for their cause. All this seemed to change with Bill Clinton's Presidential victory in 1992. Since then, the Democrats overwhelmingly developed a mean streak against anyone who was against the party line, even among their own. It's gotten worse, and perhaps people are waking up to it. The Democrats have been in a freefall for the most part since the 2000 election loss.

On The John and Ken Show, heard in Southern California on KFI, 640 AM, the hosts interviewed three prominent Democrats regarding the recall of Gray Davis. This is how bad it has gotten in California where no Democrat will defend Gov. Davis's record, but will instead focus on other irrelevant issues. Listen to U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), State Treasurer Phil Angelides, and Bob Mulholland, Chief Campaign Strategist for Governor Davis. Click on "The John and Ken Show" link above to listen. It's sad.

Some notes to consider before listening:

1. Although I do not agree with John and Ken totally, and sometimes, John can be abrasive, the facts that they give to all three of them are the truth, and have been verified. Spending has outpaced revenue, and in the case Rep. Sanchez, the electricity debacle that caused high prices is being paid by the customers, not the State's general fund.

2. John and Ken are not Republican mouthpieces even though you will see Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) and State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, potential gubernatorial candidate) listed. They have good vibrations for these two men because they agree with them on particular issues. If either Issa or McClintock became like Davis, they would after them, too.

3. John gets loud; he is very passionate about the recall, but he becomes irritated by the side-stepping.

4. I do not endorse all the interviews on the archive site, but John and Ken have done some good to Southern California politics, including energizing Orange County voters to oust a judge who was accused of possessing chld pornography and child molestation (the later case has been dismissed due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision)

5. Check out the Scott Peterson clip. Scroll down, or click on archives. it's...interesting to say the least (and yes, John is talking through a bullhorn)

6. They call Governor Davis "Joe Davis" because his real name is Joseph Graham Davis, Jr. I believe...he may be an III. Anyway, his mother nicknamed him Gray when he was younger. They refuse now to call him Gray Davis. They also call him "Governor Gumby."

Saturday, August 02, 2003

I added two blogs to the ones that I read: Barb's and Dr. George Grant's.

Friday, August 01, 2003


Sure, why not? Andrew Sandlin, in this article gives reasons why we should join the Roman Catholics.


I was watching the evening news, and they were running a story on the plight of rape victims. According to the story, when a woman accuses someone of rape, the become the accused instead of the accuser. Some of the rape victims that they interviewed said that they felt like the ones that were put on trial, and that they are the ones who have to justify their actions even though they are the ones who are victims of a crime. One woman who came forward and she was raped stated in the report that if she had to do it over, she would not call the police. The report stated that it is because of this process that many women do not come forward and report what happened and instead hold the secret inside of them.

The Kobe Bryant case is different. In this case, the woman did come forward, and not only claim that she was raped, but that the Good Guy of the NBA was the one who raped her. Regardless of whether the charges are true, Bryant's good guy image is shattered by his public admission of adultery.

Now, no one is denying that, if Kobe's claims of innocence are true, that he has every right to prove his case and discredit the accuser. She would then in fact be lying, and committing a very serious crime. Since he has admitted to adultery, the case hinges on consent. Every defendant, if he truly is innocent of rape, should be able to put forth any evidence to discredit the accuser's claims. This will mean, therefore, that the accuser will necessarily become the accused, just as it was with the women in the news story. The rub, though, comes when the accuser is in fact telling thr truth. Now of course, no one expects any privileged conversations between Kobe and his lawyer's to become public, because I seriously doubt that Kobe will ever waive those rights. However, let's suppose that Kobe told his attorney's that he in fact did it. What, then, should the defense attorney's do? Biblically and ethically, the attorneys should admit this to the court and to the prosecutor.

Some would say that this is wrong, and that it would violate the 6th Ammendment to the Constitution. I have read the Constitution, and contrary to Justice Byron White of the U.S. Supreme Court, I do not see any mention in the text that gives defense attorneys the right to stretch the truth, or in fact, outright lie to the Court. This is what the attorneys in the Danielle Van Damm murder trial did: the suspected murderer was going to cut a deal with the prosecution. He was going to show them where the body was in exchange for life in prison instead of the death penalty. They were just about to notify the court of the plea agreement when the authorities found the body. No deal was made, and the defense spent countless hours at the expense of taxpayer's money to promote a falsehood: he was putting forth witnesses, such as a bug expert, who would claim that it was not possible for the suspect to kill Danielle, when in fact, he did. Is this going to happen in this case. If Kobe really did do it, then definitly.

The accuser will be brought through the mud. Her reputation will be ruined, and even if she gets a conviction, her life will be scarred by the trial and the abuse that she will have received by people who weremore interested in getting their client off than getting at the truth of what happened.

The Ninth Commandment is one of those little inconvenient things in the law that many, even Christians,seem to ignore on a regular basis. However, the prohibition,"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor," most certainly does apply to the courtroom. Accusers must not put forward false claims, but at the same time, the accused must not distort the truth of the accusers claims. Noether should the attorneys for either side. If the accused is in fact guilty, the attorney is there to defend his rights against unjust punishment. If the accused is factually innocent, the attorney is there to protect his rights and advance his case. If the case is not black and white, the defense attorney is there to force the accuser to prove his or her case. Charging someone with a crime is a serious thing. It is one in which, biblically, if one accuses another of a crime and it turns out to be false, the accuser then faces whatever punishment the accused would have been subject to. Perhaps that is why the witnesses in the Old Testament are those who cast the first stones at the execution. If an innocent man was executed, and it is found out after the fact, then the false witnesses would then be charged with murder.

What is going to happen with Kobe Bryant? I don't know. He may be innocent, or he may in fact be a rapist. I sincerely hope that his claims of innocence are true, and that he was serious in asking for forgiveness from God for the adultery. I'm not saying this as a Laker fan, because I do like the Lakers, and I do like Kobe. I have many memories of him during the recent run by the Lakers. I remember him taking over Game 5 of the 2001 NBA finals when Shaq founed out. I remember the rebound he snagged high out of the sky in the final seconds of the 2002 Western Conference semi-finals against San Antonio, and then calmly hit a short jumper between two defenders. But that is Kobe Bryant as a player. If he's innocent, then I hope and pray that he will be vindicated; but if he's guilty, and all of this is a facade, then, to quote what someone wrote a long time ago in a country far, far away...

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31)

This page is powered by Blogger.