Monday, November 07, 2005
No more "under God," no more personal responsibility, no more child protections allowed anywhere in their Kingdom of Libgressia.
ust who are these activist potentates, the ones in the courtroom desperately trying at every opportunity to deep-six our culture and society as we know them, as if it's the Divine Right of Judges™ to do so? Who, I dare even say, appointed them such gods/esses?
While there is at least one ray of hope on the horizon, those black-robed Neptunes are still churning up angry seas of hate-filled liberalism to further bash and sink our ship of state and her precious cargo of values, traditions, and norms. The latest chapter they've written in this Poseidon Adventure has parents in our rougher western waters struggling to keep their rights from totally capsizing, after three Captain Nemos named Reinhardt, Thomas, and Lay drove this Sex Up Our Small Kids torpedo (PDF full text)
right left into their side. For a federal system of jurisprudence teeming with judges justice-marauding pirates and lawyers privateers who routinely go far out their way to conjure up the most shadowy penumbras, emanations, essences of schemes of ordered liberty, and other legalistic hocus-pocus expressly used to justify their preying on practically every cultural value and societal norm that's unfortunate enough to wander into spyglass range of their crow's nests, they couldn't bother to sift through the ample volumes of readily discoverable statutes, writings, studies, and myriad expressions in the public domain, all overwhelmingly intended to protect and promote parental rights and parents' responsibilities regarding their children's privacy and other best interests, and find anywhere in them that the government school system is at fault whenever it violates and frustrates those most fundamental of rights and responsibilities? Obviously they didn't even want to try. Instead they declared that children — without their or their parents' consent — can be sexually-awared up by any total strangers to whom a government school may alone decide to open its doors and grant such extremely personal access to our kids. "Avast ye scurvy curr, no right to privacy booty 'board here. Let's scuttle this squiffy, splice the mainbrace, and shove off. Arr!" A few more torpedoes like this fired by these judicial buccaneers and there won't be a Morning After® for any parent who cares anything about his or her children's well-being.
This is undoubtedly a fully recognized course. It follows directly the liberals' dead reckoning for what they term "an independent judiciary" — i.e., squadrons of supraconstitutional renegades who have declared their independence only from what most citizens believe is right, decent, good, moral and sensible, but who in their worldview are still deeply attached to every non-mainstream special interest group's social agenda that opposes what most citizens believe is right, decent, good, moral and sensible. This is the reason they never feel any great need to strictly consult that chart we call Our Constitution. Only when a court disallows prosecution for false reporting about police, can be counted on to go to bat for the "rights" of inhuman murderers, carjackers, and cohos while poo-pooing the rights of any minus-1 day old totally innocent infants, requests clemency on behalf of an unrepentant cold-blooded quadruple murderer, engages in blatant anti-man sexism, allows race-based "tiebreakers" in a government school's admission policy, deems monotheism a "religious orthodoxy" that justifies absolute prohibition against reciting "under God," or considers perfectly O.K. letting potential mad cows (a virtual bioweapon) freely enter our country from Qanada — just to offer a few examples — do liberals say that it is acting independently. (On a rare positive note, at least it doesn't allow "furnishing material assistance to designated terrorist organizations"...yet.) In other words, liberals do not feel a court is independent until a majority of its opinions are definitely not in The Mainstream®.
So just who's burdening us with such letters of marque against our nation of laws while attempting to turn her into one of judicial edicts? In answer I present this list of the members of Libgressia's royalty:
The Royally Pointyheaded Qourt of Her Nibsjesty
Queen “Those Bloody Wethepeople” Mary
3 appointed byUnprecedented mistake J'laise Ceorl al-Qarter :
Schroeder, Queen Mary Murphy, Her Chief
Judge Royal Lowness
Pregerson, Prince Harry
Reinhardt, Prince Stephen Roy
2 appointed byPresident of the United States Ronald Wilson Reagan :
Kozinski, Sir Alex
O'Scannlain, Sir Diarmuid Fionntain
2 appointed byPresident of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush :
Rymer, Lady Pamela Ann
Kleinfeld, Sir Andrew Jay
13 appointed byUnprecedented disgrace Whorin' Jiverson al-Qlinton :
Hawkins, Prince Michael Daly
Thomas, Prince Sidney Runyan
Silverman, Prince Barry G.
Graber, Princess Susan P.
McKeown, Princess M. Margaret
Wardlaw, Princess Kim McLane
Fletcher, Prince William A.
Fisher, Prince Raymond C.
Gould, Prince Ronald Murray
Paez, Prince Richard A.
Berzon, Princess Marsha S./L.
Tallman, Prince Richard C.
Rawlinson, Princess Johnnie B.
4 appointed byPresident of the United States George Walker Bush :
Clifton, Sir Richard R.
Bybee, Sir Jay S.
Callahan, Lady Consuelo Maria
Bea, Sir Carlos T.
God save us All.
source: The “Living” Constitution
That's just the
activist ones. There are nearly as many
queen mothers and king fathers rounding out the
throne room's assemblage.
With 67% of its activist potentates appointed by a Deludedrat, it's no wonder this court is such an enemy of all our freedoms.
Comments (registered users)
Links to this post: